Anda di halaman 1dari 222

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

WATER POLICY
REGULATIONS 2003
October 9, 2016
This is a summary letter to all local authorities in Ireland. It is
a good explanation on how Ireland was going to structure it
water infrastructure and achieve the goals as set down in the
European Water Framework Directive 2000. Fianna Fil was
the main party in Government from the negotiations of the
WFD from 1998-2000 and it's transposition into Irish law in
2003. Page 5 clearly outlines Ireland's negotiated
'Established Practice' principle and the Article 9.4 which
allows us an exemption from domestic water charges.
Also of interest in page 5, and possibly for another article, is
the mention of 'Reserved Function'. To our knowledge this
explains that local authorities have powers under the act to
set up and run River Basin District and to undertake River
Basin Management Plans. If this is the case then all local
authorities including all local county councillors should have
been in a position to know precisely what was going on.

Page 5 or WQ 3/03
Page 5 or WQ 3/03

Martin Cullen, ex Fianna Fil Minister


The full pdf letter dated 23rd December 2003 was circulated by the
Water Quality Section of the Department of the Environment to all
local authorities in Ireland and to the Director of Environmental
Service. It explains the Water Framework Directive 2000-60-EC
and it's transposition into Irish law as the European Communities
(Water Policy) Regulations 2003 (S.I No. 722), signed by the
Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Martin
Cullen, Fianna Fil on 22nd December, 2003

Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October


2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy
Official Journal L 327 , 22/12/2000 P. 0001 - 0073

Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council

of 23 October 2000

establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 175(1) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(1),

Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee(2),

Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions(3),

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty(4), and in the light of the
joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee on 18 July 2000,

Whereas:

(1) Water is not a commercial product like any other but, rather, a heritage which must be protected,
defended and treated as such.

(2) The conclusions of the Community Water Policy Ministerial Seminar in Frankfurt in 1988 highlighted the
need for Community legislation covering ecological quality. The Council in its resolution of 28 June 1988(5)
asked the Commission to submit proposals to improve ecological quality in Community surface waters.

(3) The declaration of the Ministerial Seminar on groundwater held at The Hague in 1991 recognised the
need for action to avoid long-term deterioration of freshwater quality and quantity and called for a
programme of actions to be implemented by the year 2000 aiming at sustainable management and
protection of freshwater resources. In its resolutions of 25 February 1992(6), and 20 February 1995(7), the
Council requested an action programme for groundwater and a revision of Council Directive 80/68/EEC of
17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous
substances(8), as part of an overall policy on freshwater protection.

(4) Waters in the Community are under increasing pressure from the continuous growth in demand for
sufficient quantities of good quality water for all purposes. On 10 November 1995, the European
Environment Agency in its report "Environment in the European Union - 1995" presented an updated state
of the environment report, confirming the need for action to protect Community waters in qualitative as
well as in quantitative terms.

(5) On 18 December 1995, the Council adopted conclusions requiring, inter alia, the drawing up of a new
framework Directive establishing the basic principles of sustainable water policy in the European Union and
inviting the Commission to come forward with a proposal.

(6) On 21 February 1996 the Commission adopted a communication to the European Parliament and the
Council on European Community water policy setting out the principles for a Community water policy.

(7) On 9 September 1996 the Commission presented a proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament
and of the Council on an action programme for integrated protection and management of groundwater(9).
In that proposal the Commission pointed to the need to establish procedures for the regulation of
abstraction of freshwater and for the monitoring of freshwater quality and quantity.

(8) On 29 May 1995 the Commission adopted a communication to the European Parliament and the
Council on the wise use and conservation of wetlands, which recognised the important functions they
perform for the protection of water resources.

(9) It is necessary to develop an integrated Community policy on water.

(10) The Council on 25 June 1996, the Committee of the Regions on 19 September 1996, the Economic
and Social Committee on 26 September 1996, and the European Parliament on 23 October 1996 all
requested the Commission to come forward with a proposal for a Council Directive establishing a
framework for a European water policy.

(11) As set out in Article 174 of the Treaty, the Community policy on the environment is to contribute to
pursuit of the objectives of preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment, in prudent
and rational utilisation of natural resources, and to be based on the precautionary principle and on the
principles that preventive action should be taken, environmental damage should, as a priority, be rectified
at source and that the polluter should pay.

(12) Pursuant to Article 174 of the Treaty, in preparing its policy on the environment, the Community is to
take account of available scientific and technical data, environmental conditions in the various regions of
the Community, and the economic and social development of the Community as a whole and the balanced
development of its regions as well as the potential benefits and costs of action or lack of action.

(13) There are diverse conditions and needs in the Community which require different specific solutions.
This diversity should be taken into account in the planning and execution of measures to ensure protection
and sustainable use of water in the framework of the river basin. Decisions should be taken as close as
possible to the locations where water is affected or used. Priority should be given to action within the
responsibility of Member States through the drawing up of programmes of measures adjusted to regional
and local conditions.

(14) The success of this Directive relies on close cooperation and coherent action at Community, Member
State and local level as well as on information, consultation and involvement of the public, including users.

(15) The supply of water is a service of general interest as defined in the Commission communication on
services of general interest in Europe(10).

(16) Further integration of protection and sustainable management of water into other Community policy
areas such as energy, transport, agriculture, fisheries, regional policy and tourism is necessary. This
Directive should provide a basis for a continued dialogue and for the development of strategies towards a
further integration of policy areas. This Directive can also make an important contribution to other areas of
cooperation between Member States, inter alia, the European spatial development perspective (ESDP).

(17) An effective and coherent water policy must take account of the vulnerability of aquatic ecosystems
located near the coast and estuaries or in gulfs or relatively closed seas, as their equilibrium is strongly
influenced by the quality of inland waters flowing into them. Protection of water status within river basins
will provide economic benefits by contributing towards the protection of fish populations, including coastal
fish populations.

(18) Community water policy requires a transparent, effective and coherent legislative framework. The
Community should provide common principles and the overall framework for action. This Directive should
provide for such a framework and coordinate and integrate, and, in a longer perspective, further develop
the overall principles and structures for protection and sustainable use of water in the Community in
accordance with the principles of subsidiarity.

(19) This Directive aims at maintaining and improving the aquatic environment in the Community. This
purpose is primarily concerned with the quality of the waters concerned. Control of quantity is an ancillary
element in securing good water quality and therefore measures on quantity, serving the objective of
ensuring good quality, should also be established.

(20) The quantitative status of a body of groundwater may have an impact on the ecological quality of
surface waters and terrestrial ecosystems associated with that groundwater body.

(21) The Community and Member States are party to various international agreements containing
important obligations on the protection of marine waters from pollution, in particular the Convention on the
Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, signed in Helsinki on 9 April 1992 and
approved by Council Decision 94/157/EC(11), the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment
of the North-East Atlantic, signed in Paris on 22 September 1992 and approved by Council Decision
98/249/EC(12), and the Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution, signed in
Barcelona on 16 February 1976 and approved by Council Decision 77/585/EEC(13), and its Protocol for the
Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution from Land-Based Sources, signed in Athens on 17
May 1980 and approved by Council Decision 83/101/EEC(14). This Directive is to make a contribution
towards enabling the Community and Member States to meet those obligations.

(22) This Directive is to contribute to the progressive reduction of emissions of hazardous substances to
water.

(23) Common principles are needed in order to coordinate Member States' efforts to improve the
protection of Community waters in terms of quantity and quality, to promote sustainable water use, to
contribute to the control of transboundary water problems, to protect aquatic ecosystems, and terrestrial
ecosystems and wetlands directly depending on them, and to safeguard and develop the potential uses of
Community waters.

(24) Good water quality will contribute to securing the drinking water supply for the population.

(25) Common definitions of the status of water in terms of quality and, where relevant for the purpose of
the environmental protection, quantity should be established. Environmental objectives should be set to
ensure that good status of surface water and groundwater is achieved throughout the Community and that
deterioration in the status of waters is prevented at Community level.

(26) Member States should aim to achieve the objective of at least good water status by defining and
implementing the necessary measures within integrated programmes of measures, taking into account
existing Community requirements. Where good water status already exists, it should be maintained. For
groundwater, in addition to the requirements of good status, any significant and sustained upward trend in
the concentration of any pollutant should be identified and reversed.

(27) The ultimate aim of this Directive is to achieve the elimination of priority hazardous substances and
contribute to achieving concentrations in the marine environment near background values for naturally
occurring substances.

(28) Surface waters and groundwaters are in principle renewable natural resources; in particular, the task
of ensuring good status of groundwater requires early action and stable long-term planning of protective
measures, owing to the natural time lag in its formation and renewal. Such time lag for improvement
should be taken into account in timetables when establishing measures for the achievement of good status
of groundwater and reversing any significant and sustained upward trend in the concentration of any
pollutant in groundwater.

(29) In aiming to achieve the objectives set out in this Directive, and in establishing a programme of
measures to that end, Member States may phase implementation of the programme of measures in order
to spread the costs of implementation.
(30) In order to ensure a full and consistent implementation of this Directive any extensions of timescale
should be made on the basis of appropriate, evident and transparent criteria and be justified by the
Member States in the river basin management plans.

(31) In cases where a body of water is so affected by human activity or its natural condition is such that it
may be unfeasible or unreasonably expensive to achieve good status, less stringent environmental
objectives may be set on the basis of appropriate, evident and transparent criteria, and all practicable
steps should be taken to prevent any further deterioration of the status of waters.

(32) There may be grounds for exemptions from the requirement to prevent further deterioration or to
achieve good status under specific conditions, if the failure is the result of unforeseen or exceptional
circumstances, in particular floods and droughts, or, for reasons of overriding public interest, of new
modifications to the physical characteristics of a surface water body or alterations to the level of bodies of
groundwater, provided that all practicable steps are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of
the body of water.

(33) The objective of achieving good water status should be pursued for each river basin, so that measures
in respect of surface water and groundwaters belonging to the same ecological, hydrological and
hydrogeological system are coordinated.

(34) For the purposes of environmental protection there is a need for a greater integration of qualitative
and quantitative aspects of both surface waters and groundwaters, taking into account the natural flow
conditions of water within the hydrological cycle.

(35) Within a river basin where use of water may have transboundary effects, the requirements for the
achievement of the environmental objectives established under this Directive, and in particular all
programmes of measures, should be coordinated for the whole of the river basin district. For river basins
extending beyond the boundaries of the Community, Member States should endeavour to ensure the
appropriate coordination with the relevant non-member States. This Directive is to contribute to the
implementation of Community obligations under international conventions on water protection and
management, notably the United Nations Convention on the protection and use of transboundary water
courses and international lakes, approved by Council Decision 95/308/EC(15) and any succeeding
agreements on its application.

(36) It is necessary to undertake analyses of the characteristics of a river basin and the impacts of human
activity as well as an economic analysis of water use. The development in water status should be
monitored by Member States on a systematic and comparable basis throughout the Community. This
information is necessary in order to provide a sound basis for Member States to develop programmes of
measures aimed at achieving the objectives established under this Directive.

(37) Member States should identify waters used for the abstraction of drinking water and ensure
compliance with Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the quality of water intended for
human consumption(16).

(38) The use of economic instruments by Member States may be appropriate as part of a programme of
measures. The principle of recovery of the costs of water services, including environmental and resource
costs associated with damage or negative impact on the aquatic environment should be taken into account
in accordance with, in particular, the polluter-pays principle. An economic analysis of water services based
on long-term forecasts of supply and demand for water in the river basin district will be necessary for this
purpose.

(39) There is a need to prevent or reduce the impact of incidents in which water is accidentally polluted.
Measures with the aim of doing so should be included in the programme of measures.

(40) With regard to pollution prevention and control, Community water policy should be based on a
combined approach using control of pollution at source through the setting of emission limit values and of
environmental quality standards.

(41) For water quantity, overall principles should be laid down for control on abstraction and impoundment
in order to ensure the environmental sustainability of the affected water systems.

(42) Common environmental quality standards and emission limit values for certain groups or families of
pollutants should be laid down as minimum requirements in Community legislation. Provisions for the
adoption of such standards at Community level should be ensured.

(43) Pollution through the discharge, emission or loss of priority hazardous substances must cease or be
phased out. The European Parliament and the Council should, on a proposal from the Commission, agree
on the substances to be considered for action as a priority and on specific measures to be taken against
pollution of water by those substances, taking into account all significant sources and identifying the cost-
effective and proportionate level and combination of controls.

(44) In identifying priority hazardous substances, account should be taken of the precautionary principle,
relying in particular on the determination of any potentially adverse effects of the product and on a
scientific assessment of the risk.

(45) Member States should adopt measures to eliminate pollution of surface water by the priority
substances and progressively to reduce pollution by other substances which would otherwise prevent
Member States from achieving the objectives for the bodies of surface water.

(46) To ensure the participation of the general public including users of water in the establishment and
updating of river basin management plans, it is necessary to provide proper information of planned
measures and to report on progress with their implementation with a view to the involvement of the
general public before final decisions on the necessary measures are adopted.
(47) This Directive should provide mechanisms to address obstacles to progress in improving water status
when these fall outside the scope of Community water legislation, with a view to developing appropriate
Community strategies for overcoming them.

(48) The Commission should present annually an updated plan for any initiatives which it intends to
propose for the water sector.

(49) Technical specifications should be laid down to ensure a coherent approach in the Community as part
of this Directive. Criteria for evaluation of water status are an important step forward. Adaptation of certain
technical elements to technical development and the standardisation of monitoring, sampling and analysis
methods should be adopted by committee procedure. To promote a thorough understanding and
consistent application of the criteria for characterisation of the river basin districts and evaluation of water
status, the Commission may adopt guidelines on the application of these criteria.

(50) The measures necessary for the implementation of this Directive should be adopted in accordance
with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of
implementing powers conferred on the Commission(17).

(51) The implementation of this Directive is to achieve a level of protection of waters at least equivalent to
that provided in certain earlier acts, which should therefore be repealed once the relevant provisions of this
Directive have been fully implemented.

(52) The provisions of this Directive take over the framework for control of pollution by dangerous
substances established under Directive 76/464/EEC(18). That Directive should therefore be repealed once
the relevant provisions of this Directive have been fully implemented.

(53) Full implementation and enforcement of existing environmental legislation for the protection of waters
should be ensured. It is necessary to ensure the proper application of the provisions implementing this
Directive throughout the Community by appropriate penalties provided for in Member States' legislation.
Such penalties should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1

Purpose

The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters,
transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater which:

(a) prevents further deterioration and protects and enhances the status of aquatic ecosystems and, with
regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly depending on the aquatic
ecosystems;

(b) promotes sustainable water use based on a long-term protection of available water resources;

(c) aims at enhanced protection and improvement of the aquatic environment, inter alia, through specific
measures for the progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and losses of priority substances and the
cessation or phasing-out of discharges, emissions and losses of the priority hazardous substances;

(d) ensures the progressive reduction of pollution of groundwater and prevents its further pollution, and

(e) contributes to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts

and thereby contributes to:

- the provision of the sufficient supply of good quality surface water and groundwater as needed for
sustainable, balanced and equitable water use,

- a significant reduction in pollution of groundwater,

- the protection of territorial and marine waters, and

- achieving the objectives of relevant international agreements, including those which aim to prevent and
eliminate pollution of the marine environment, by Community action under Article 16(3) to cease or phase
out discharges, emissions and losses of priority hazardous substances, with the ultimate aim of achieving
concentrations in the marine environment near background values for naturally occurring substances and
close to zero for man-made synthetic substances.

Article 2

Definitions

For the purposes of this Directive the following definitions shall apply:

1. "Surface water" means inland waters, except groundwater; transitional waters and coastal waters,
except in respect of chemical status for which it shall also include territorial waters.

2. "Groundwater" means all water which is below the surface of the ground in the saturation zone and in
direct contact with the ground or subsoil.

3. "Inland water" means all standing or flowing water on the surface of the land, and all groundwater on
the landward side of the baseline from which the breadth of territorial waters is measured.
4. "River" means a body of inland water flowing for the most part on the surface of the land but which may
flow underground for part of its course.

5. "Lake" means a body of standing inland surface water.

6. "Transitional waters" are bodies of surface water in the vicinity of river mouths which are partly saline in
character as a result of their proximity to coastal waters but which are substantially influenced by
freshwater flows.

7. "Coastal water" means surface water on the landward side of a line, every point of which is at a distance
of one nautical mile on the seaward side from the nearest point of the baseline from which the breadth of
territorial waters is measured, extending where appropriate up to the outer limit of transitional waters.

8. "Artificial water body" means a body of surface water created by human activity.

9. "Heavily modified water body"

means a body of surface water which as a result of physical alterations by human activity is substantially
changed in character, as designated by the Member State in accordance with the provisions of Annex II.

10. "Body of surface water" means a discrete and significant element of surface water such as a lake, a
reservoir, a stream, river or canal, part of a stream, river or canal, a transitional water or a stretch of
coastal water.

11. "Aquifer" means a subsurface layer or layers of rock or other geological strata of sufficient porosity and
permeability to allow either a significant flow of groundwater or the abstraction of significant quantities of
groundwater.

12. "Body of groundwater" means a distinct volume of groundwater within an aquifer or aquifers.

13. "River basin" means the area of land from which all surface run-off flows through a sequence of
streams, rivers and, possibly, lakes into the sea at a single river mouth, estuary or delta.

14. "Sub-basin" means the area of land from which all surface run-off flows through a series of streams,
rivers and, possibly, lakes to a particular point in a water course (normally a lake or a river confluence).

15. "River basin district" means the area of land and sea, made up of one or more neighbouring river
basins together with their associated groundwaters and coastal waters, which is identified under Article
3(1) as the main unit for management of river basins.

16. "Competent Authority" means an authority or authorities identified under Article 3(2) or 3(3).

17. "Surface water status" is the general expression of the status of a body of surface water, determined
by the poorer of its ecological status and its chemical status.

18. "Good surface water status" means the status achieved by a surface water body when both its
ecological status and its chemical status are at least "good".

19. "Groundwater status" is the general expression of the status of a body of groundwater, determined by
the poorer of its quantitative status and its chemical status.

20. "Good groundwater status" means the status achieved by a groundwater body when both its
quantitative status and its chemical status are at least "good".

21. "Ecological status" is an expression of the quality of the structure and functioning of aquatic
ecosystems associated with surface waters, classified in accordance with Annex V.

22. "Good ecological status" is the status of a body of surface water, so classified in accordance with Annex
V.

23. "Good ecological potential" is the status of a heavily modified or an artificial body of water, so classified
in accordance with the relevant provisions of Annex V.

24. "Good surface water chemical status" means the chemical status required to meet the environmental
objectives for surface waters established in Article 4(1)(a), that is the chemical status achieved by a body
of surface water in which concentrations of pollutants do not exceed the environmental quality standards
established in Annex IX and under Article 16(7), and under other relevant Community legislation setting
environmental quality standards at Community level.

25. "Good groundwater chemical status" is the chemical status of a body of groundwater, which meets all
the conditions set out in table 2.3.2 of Annex V.

26. "Quantitative status" is an expression of the degree to which a body of groundwater is affected by
direct and indirect abstractions.

27. "Available groundwater resource" means the long-term annual average rate of overall recharge of the
body of groundwater less the long-term annual rate of flow required to achieve the ecological quality
objectives for associated surface waters specified under Article 4, to avoid any significant diminution in the
ecological status of such waters and to avoid any significant damage to associated terrestrial ecosystems.

28. "Good quantitative status" is the status defined in table 2.1.2 of Annex V.

29. "Hazardous substances" means substances or groups of substances that are toxic, persistent and liable
to bio-accumulate, and other substances or groups of substances which give rise to an equivalent level of
concern.
30. "Priority substances" means substances identified in accordance with Article 16(2) and listed in Annex
X. Among these substances there are "priority hazardous substances" which means substances identified in
accordance with Article 16(3) and (6) for which measures have to be taken in accordance with Article
16(1) and (8).

31. "Pollutant" means any substance liable to cause pollution, in particular those listed in Annex VIII.

32. "Direct discharge to groundwater" means discharge of pollutants into groundwater without percolation
throughout the soil or subsoil.

33. "Pollution" means the direct or indirect introduction, as a result of human activity, of substances or
heat into the air, water or land which may be harmful to human health or the quality of aquatic
ecosystems or terrestrial ecosystems directly depending on aquatic ecosystems, which result in damage to
material property, or which impair or interfere with amenities and other legitimate uses of the
environment.

34. "Environmental objectives" means the objectives set out in Article 4.

35. "Environmental quality standard" means the concentration of a particular pollutant or group of
pollutants in water, sediment or biota which should not be exceeded in order to protect human health and
the environment.

36. "Combined approach" means the control of discharges and emissions into surface waters according to
the approach set out in Article 10.

37. "Water intended for human consumption" has the same meaning as under Directive 80/778/EEC, as
amended by Directive 98/83/EC.

38. "Water services" means all services which provide, for households, public institutions or any economic
activity:

(a) abstraction, impoundment, storage, treatment and distribution of surface water or groundwater,

(b) waste-water collection and treatment facilities which subsequently discharge into surface water.

39. "Water use" means water services together with any other activity identified under Article 5 and Annex
II having a significant impact on the status of water.

This concept applies for the purposes of Article 1 and of the economic analysis carried out according to
Article 5 and Annex III, point (b).

40. "Emission limit values" means the mass, expressed in terms of certain specific parameters,
concentration and/or level of an emission, which may not be exceeded during any one or more periods of
time. Emission limit values may also be laid down for certain groups, families or categories of substances,
in particular for those identified under Article 16.

The emission limit values for substances shall normally apply at the point where the emissions leave the
installation, dilution being disregarded when determining them. With regard to indirect releases into water,
the effect of a waste-water treatment plant may be taken into account when determining the emission limit
values of the installations involved, provided that an equivalent level is guaranteed for protection of the
environment as a whole and provided that this does not lead to higher levels of pollution in the
environment.

41. "Emission controls" are controls requiring a specific emission limitation, for instance an emission limit
value, or otherwise specifying limits or conditions on the effects, nature or other characteristics of an
emission or operating conditions which affect emissions. Use of the term "emission control" in this Directive
in respect of the provisions of any other Directive shall not be held as reinterpreting those provisions in any
respect.

Article 3

Coordination of administrative arrangements within river basin districts

1. Member States shall identify the individual river basins lying within their national territory and, for the
purposes of this Directive, shall assign them to individual river basin districts. Small river basins may be
combined with larger river basins or joined with neighbouring small basins to form individual river basin
districts where appropriate. Where groundwaters do not fully follow a particular river basin, they shall be
identified and assigned to the nearest or most appropriate river basin district. Coastal waters shall be
identified and assigned to the nearest or most appropriate river basin district or districts.

2. Member States shall ensure the appropriate administrative arrangements, including the identification of
the appropriate competent authority, for the application of the rules of this Directive within each river basin
district lying within their territory.

3. Member States shall ensure that a river basin covering the territory of more than one Member State is
assigned to an international river basin district. At the request of the Member States involved, the
Commission shall act to facilitate the assigning to such international river basin districts.

Each Member State shall ensure the appropriate administrative arrangements, including the identification
of the appropriate competent authority, for the application of the rules of this Directive within the portion
of any international river basin district lying within its territory.

4. Member States shall ensure that the requirements of this Directive for the achievement of the
environmental objectives established under Article 4, and in particular all programmes of measures are
coordinated for the whole of the river basin district. For international river basin districts the Member
States concerned shall together ensure this coordination and may, for this purpose, use existing structures
stemming from international agreements. At the request of the Member States involved, the Commission
shall act to facilitate the establishment of the programmes of measures.

5. Where a river basin district extends beyond the territory of the Community, the Member State or
Member States concerned shall endeavour to establish appropriate coordination with the relevant non-
Member States, with the aim of achieving the objectives of this Directive throughout the river basin district.
Member States shall ensure the application of the rules of this Directive within their territory.

6. Member States may identify an existing national or international body as competent authority for the
purposes of this Directive.

7. Member States shall identify the competent authority by the date mentioned in Article 24.

8. Member States shall provide the Commission with a list of their competent authorities and of the
competent authorities of all the international bodies in which they participate at the latest six months after
the date mentioned in Article 24. For each competent authority the information set out in Annex I shall be
provided.

9. Member States shall inform the Commission of any changes to the information provided according to
paragraph 8 within three months of the change coming into effect.

Article 4

Environmental objectives

1. In making operational the programmes of measures specified in the river basin management plans:

(a) for surface waters

(i) Member States shall implement the necessary measures to prevent deterioration of the status of all
bodies of surface water, subject to the application of paragraphs 6 and 7 and without prejudice to
paragraph 8;

(ii) Member States shall protect, enhance and restore all bodies of surface water, subject to the application
of subparagraph (iii) for artificial and heavily modified bodies of water, with the aim of achieving good
surface water status at the latest 15 years after the date of entry into force of this Directive, in accordance
with the provisions laid down in Annex V, subject to the application of extensions determined in
accordance with paragraph 4 and to the application of paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 without prejudice to
paragraph 8;

(iii) Member States shall protect and enhance all artificial and heavily modified bodies of water, with the
aim of achieving good ecological potential and good surface water chemical status at the latest 15 years
from the date of entry into force of this Directive, in accordance with the provisions laid down in Annex V,
subject to the application of extensions determined in accordance with paragraph 4 and to the application
of paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 without prejudice to paragraph 8;

(iv) Member States shall implement the necessary measures in accordance with Article 16(1) and (8), with
the aim of progressively reducing pollution from priority substances and ceasing or phasing out emissions,
discharges and losses of priority hazardous substances

without prejudice to the relevant international agreements referred to in Article 1 for the parties
concerned;

(b) for groundwater

(i) Member States shall implement the measures necessary to prevent or limit the input of pollutants into
groundwater and to prevent the deterioration of the status of all bodies of groundwater, subject to the
application of paragraphs 6 and 7 and without prejudice to paragraph 8 of this Article and subject to the
application of Article 11(3)(j);

(ii) Member States shall protect, enhance and restore all bodies of groundwater, ensure a balance between
abstraction and recharge of groundwater, with the aim of achieving good groundwater status at the latest
15 years after the date of entry into force of this Directive, in accordance with the provisions laid down in
Annex V, subject to the application of extensions determined in accordance with paragraph 4 and to the
application of paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 without prejudice to paragraph 8 of this Article and subject to the
application of Article 11(3)(j);

(iii) Member States shall implement the measures necessary to reverse any significant and sustained
upward trend in the concentration of any pollutant resulting from the impact of human activity in order
progressively to reduce pollution of groundwater.

Measures to achieve trend reversal shall be implemented in accordance with paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 of
Article 17, taking into account the applicable standards set out in relevant Community legislation, subject
to the application of paragraphs 6 and 7 and without prejudice to paragraph 8;

(c) for protected areas

Member States shall achieve compliance with any standards and objectives at the latest 15 years after the
date of entry into force of this Directive, unless otherwise specified in the Community legislation under
which the individual protected areas have been established.

2. Where more than one of the objectives under paragraph 1 relates to a given body of water, the most
stringent shall apply.
3. Member States may designate a body of surface water as artificial or heavily modified, when:

(a) the changes to the hydromorphological characteristics of that body which would be necessary for
achieving good ecological status would have significant adverse effects on:

(i) the wider environment;

(ii) navigation, including port facilities, or recreation;

(iii) activities for the purposes of which water is stored, such as drinking-water supply, power generation or
irrigation;

(iv) water regulation, flood protection, land drainage, or

(v) other equally important sustainable human development activities;

(b) the beneficial objectives served by the artificial or modified characteristics of the water body cannot, for
reasons of technical feasibility or disproportionate costs, reasonably be achieved by other means, which
are a significantly better environmental option.

Such designation and the reasons for it shall be specifically mentioned in the river basin management plans
required under Article 13 and reviewed every six years.

4. The deadlines established under paragraph 1 may be extended for the purposes of phased achievement
of the objectives for bodies of water, provided that no further deterioration occurs in the status of the
affected body of water when all of the following conditions are met:

(a) Member States determine that all necessary improvements in the status of bodies of water cannot
reasonably be achieved within the timescales set out in that paragraph for at least one of the following
reasons:

(i) the scale of improvements required can only be achieved in phases exceeding the timescale, for reasons
of technical feasibility;

(ii) completing the improvements within the timescale would be disproportionately expensive;

(iii) natural conditions do not allow timely improvement in the status of the body of water.

(b) Extension of the deadline, and the reasons for it, are specifically set out and explained in the river
basin management plan required under Article 13.

(c) Extensions shall be limited to a maximum of two further updates of the river basin management plan
except in cases where the natural conditions are such that the objectives cannot be achieved within this
period.

(d) A summary of the measures required under Article 11 which are envisaged as necessary to bring the
bodies of water progressively to the required status by the extended deadline, the reasons for any
significant delay in making these measures operational, and the expected timetable for their
implementation are set out in the river basin management plan. A review of the implementation of these
measures and a summary of any additional measures shall be included in updates of the river basin
management plan.

5. Member States may aim to achieve less stringent environmental objectives than those required under
paragraph 1 for specific bodies of water when they are so affected by human activity, as determined in
accordance with Article 5(1), or their natural condition is such that the achievement of these objectives
would be infeasible or disproportionately expensive, and all the following conditions are met:

(a) the environmental and socioeconomic needs served by such human activity cannot be achieved by
other means, which are a significantly better environmental option not entailing disproportionate costs;

(b) Member States ensure,

- for surface water, the highest ecological and chemical status possible is achieved, given impacts that
could not reasonably have been avoided due to the nature of the human activity or pollution,

- for groundwater, the least possible changes to good groundwater status, given impacts that could not
reasonably have been avoided due to the nature of the human activity or pollution;

(c) no further deterioration occurs in the status of the affected body of water;

(d) the establishment of less stringent environmental objectives, and the reasons for it, are specifically
mentioned in the river basin management plan required under Article 13 and those objectives are reviewed
every six years.

6. Temporary deterioration in the status of bodies of water shall not be in breach of the requirements of
this Directive if this is the result of circumstances of natural cause or force majeure which are exceptional
or could not reasonably have been foreseen, in particular extreme floods and prolonged droughts, or the
result of circumstances due to accidents which could not reasonably have been foreseen, when all of the
following conditions have been met:

(a) all practicable steps are taken to prevent further deterioration in status and in order not to compromise
the achievement of the objectives of this Directive in other bodies of water not affected by those
circumstances;
(b) the conditions under which circumstances that are exceptional or that could not reasonably have been
foreseen may be declared, including the adoption of the appropriate indicators, are stated in the river basin
management plan;

(c) the measures to be taken under such exceptional circumstances are included in the programme of
measures and will not compromise the recovery of the quality of the body of water once the circumstances
are over;

(d) the effects of the circumstances that are exceptional or that could not reasonably have been foreseen
are reviewed annually and, subject to the reasons set out in paragraph 4(a), all practicable measures are
taken with the aim of restoring the body of water to its status prior to the effects of those circumstances
as soon as reasonably practicable, and

(e) a summary of the effects of the circumstances and of such measures taken or to be taken in
accordance with paragraphs (a) and (d) are included in the next update of the river basin management
plan.

7. Member States will not be in breach of this Directive when:

- failure to achieve good groundwater status, good ecological status or, where relevant, good ecological
potential or to prevent deterioration in the status of a body of surface water or groundwater is the result of
new modifications to the physical characteristics of a surface water body or alterations to the level of
bodies of groundwater, or

- failure to prevent deterioration from high status to good status of a body of surface water is the result of
new sustainable human development activities

and all the following conditions are met:

(a) all practicable steps are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of the body of water;

(b) the reasons for those modifications or alterations are specifically set out and explained in the river
basin management plan required under Article 13 and the objectives are reviewed every six years;

(c) the reasons for those modifications or alterations are of overriding public interest and/or the benefits to
the environment and to society of achieving the objectives set out in paragraph 1 are outweighed by the
benefits of the new modifications or alterations to human health, to the maintenance of human safety or to
sustainable development, and

(d) the beneficial objectives served by those modifications or alterations of the water body cannot for
reasons of technical feasibility or disproportionate cost be achieved by other means, which are a
significantly better environmental option.

8. When applying paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, a Member State shall ensure that the application does not
permanently exclude or compromise the achievement of the objectives of this Directive in other bodies of
water within the same river basin district and is consistent with the implementation of other Community
environmental legislation.

9. Steps must be taken to ensure that the application of the new provisions, including the application of
paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, guarantees at least the same level of protection as the existing Community
legislation.

Article 5

Characteristics of the river basin district, review of the environmental impact of human activity and
economic analysis of water use

1. Each Member State shall ensure that for each river basin district or for the portion of an international
river basin district falling within its territory:

- an analysis of its characteristics,

- a review of the impact of human activity on the status of surface waters and on groundwater, and

- an economic analysis of water use

is undertaken according to the technical specifications set out in Annexes II and III and that it is
completed at the latest four years after the date of entry into force of this Directive.

2. The analyses and reviews mentioned under paragraph 1 shall be reviewed, and if necessary updated at
the latest 13 years after the date of entry into force of this Directive and every six years thereafter.

Article 6

Register of protected areas

1. Member States shall ensure the establishment of a register or registers of all areas lying within each
river basin district which have been designated as requiring special protection under specific Community
legislation for the protection of their surface water and groundwater or for the conservation of habitats and
species directly depending on water. They shall ensure that the register is completed at the latest four
years after the date of entry into force of this Directive.

2. The register or registers shall include all bodies of water identified under Article 7(1) and all protected
areas covered by Annex IV.
3. For each river basin district, the register or registers of protected areas shall be kept under review and
up to date.

Article 7

Waters used for the abstraction of drinking water

1. Member States shall identify, within each river basin district:

- all bodies of water used for the abstraction of water intended for human consumption providing more
than 10 m3 a day as an average or serving more than 50 persons, and

- those bodies of water intended for such future use.

Member States shall monitor, in accordance with Annex V, those bodies of water which according to Annex
V, provide more than 100 m3 a day as an average.

2. For each body of water identified under paragraph 1, in addition to meeting the objectives of Article 4 in
accordance with the requirements of this Directive, for surface water bodies including the quality standards
established at Community level under Article 16, Member States shall ensure that under the water
treatment regime applied, and in accordance with Community legislation, the resulting water will meet the
requirements of Directive 80/778/EEC as amended by Directive 98/83/EC.

3. Member States shall ensure the necessary protection for the bodies of water identified with the aim of
avoiding deterioration in their quality in order to reduce the level of purification treatment required in the
production of drinking water. Member States may establish safeguard zones for those bodies of water.

Article 8

Monitoring of surface water status, groundwater status and protected areas

1. Member States shall ensure the establishment of programmes for the monitoring of water status in
order to establish a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each river basin district:

- for surface waters such programmes shall cover:

(i) the volume and level or rate of flow to the extent relevant for ecological and chemical status and
ecological potential, and

(ii) the ecological and chemical status and ecological potential;

- for groundwaters such programmes shall cover monitoring of the chemical and quantitative status,

- for protected areas the above programmes shall be supplemented by those specifications contained in
Community legislation under which the individual protected areas have been established.

2. These programmes shall be operational at the latest six years after the date of entry into force of this
Directive unless otherwise specified in the legislation concerned. Such monitoring shall be in accordance
with the requirements of Annex V.

3. Technical specifications and standardised methods for analysis and monitoring of water status shall be
laid down in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 21.

Article 9

Recovery of costs for water services

1. Member States shall take account of the principle of recovery of the costs of water services, including
environmental and resource costs, having regard to the economic analysis conducted according to Annex
III, and in accordance in particular with the polluter pays principle.

Member States shall ensure by 2010

- that water-pricing policies provide adequate incentives for users to use water resources efficiently, and
thereby contribute to the environmental objectives of this Directive,

- an adequate contribution of the different water uses, disaggregated into at least industry, households
and agriculture, to the recovery of the costs of water services, based on the economic analysis conducted
according to Annex III and taking account of the polluter pays principle.

Member States may in so doing have regard to the social, environmental and economic effects of the
recovery as well as the geographic and climatic conditions of the region or regions affected.

2. Member States shall report in the river basin management plans on the planned steps towards
implementing paragraph 1 which will contribute to achieving the environmental objectives of this Directive
and on the contribution made by the various water uses to the recovery of the costs of water services.

3. Nothing in this Article shall prevent the funding of particular preventive or remedial measures in order to
achieve the objectives of this Directive.

4. Member States shall not be in breach of this Directive if they decide in accordance with established
practices not to apply the provisions of paragraph 1, second sentence, and for that purpose the relevant
provisions of paragraph 2, for a given water-use activity, where this does not compromise the purposes
and the achievement of the objectives of this Directive. Member States shall report the reasons for not fully
applying paragraph 1, second sentence, in the river basin management plans.
Article 10

The combined approach for point and diffuse sources

1. Member States shall ensure that all discharges referred to in paragraph 2 into surface waters are
controlled according to the combined approach set out in this Article.

2. Member States shall ensure the establishment and/or implementation of:

(a) the emission controls based on best available techniques, or

(b) the relevant emission limit values, or

(c) in the case of diffuse impacts the controls including, as appropriate, best environmental practices

set out in:

- Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and
control(19),

- Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment(20),

- Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution
caused by nitrates from agricultural sources(21),

- the Directives adopted pursuant to Article 16 of this Directive,

- the Directives listed in Annex IX,

- any other relevant Community legislation

at the latest 12 years after the date of entry into force of this Directive, unless otherwise specified in the
legislation concerned.

3. Where a quality objective or quality standard, whether established pursuant to this Directive, in the
Directives listed in Annex IX, or pursuant to any other Community legislation, requires stricter conditions
than those which would result from the application of paragraph 2, more stringent emission controls shall
be set accordingly.

Article 11

Programme of measures

1. Each Member State shall ensure the establishment for each river basin district, or for the part of an
international river basin district within its territory, of a programme of measures, taking account of the
results of the analyses required under Article 5, in order to achieve the objectives established under Article
4. Such programmes of measures may make reference to measures following from legislation adopted at
national level and covering the whole of the territory of a Member State. Where appropriate, a Member
State may adopt measures applicable to all river basin districts and/or the portions of international river
basin districts falling within its territory.

2. Each programme of measures shall include the "basic" measures specified in paragraph 3 and, where
necessary, "supplementary" measures.

3. "Basic measures" are the minimum requirements to be complied with and shall consist of:

(a) those measures required to implement Community legislation for the protection of water, including
measures required under the legislation specified in Article 10 and in part A of Annex VI;

(b) measures deemed appropriate for the purposes of Article 9;

(c) measures to promote an efficient and sustainable water use in order to avoid compromising the
achievement of the objectives specified in Article 4;

(d) measures to meet the requirements of Article 7, including measures to safeguard water quality in order
to reduce the level of purification treatment required for the production of drinking water;

(e) controls over the abstraction of fresh surface water and groundwater, and impoundment of fresh
surface water, including a register or registers of water abstractions and a requirement of prior
authorisation for abstraction and impoundment. These controls shall be periodically reviewed and, where
necessary, updated. Member States can exempt from these controls, abstractions or impoundments which
have no significant impact on water status;

(f) controls, including a requirement for prior authorisation of artificial recharge or augmentation of
groundwater bodies. The water used may be derived from any surface water or groundwater, provided
that the use of the source does not compromise the achievement of the environmental objectives
established for the source or the recharged or augmented body of groundwater. These controls shall be
periodically reviewed and, where necessary, updated;

(g) for point source discharges liable to cause pollution, a requirement for prior regulation, such as a
prohibition on the entry of pollutants into water, or for prior authorisation, or registration based on general
binding rules, laying down emission controls for the pollutants concerned, including controls in accordance
with Articles 10 and 16. These controls shall be periodically reviewed and, where necessary, updated;
(h) for diffuse sources liable to cause pollution, measures to prevent or control the input of pollutants.
Controls may take the form of a requirement for prior regulation, such as a prohibition on the entry of
pollutants into water, prior authorisation or registration based on general binding rules where such a
requirement is not otherwise provided for under Community legislation. These controls shall be periodically
reviewed and, where necessary, updated;

(i) for any other significant adverse impacts on the status of water identified under Article 5 and Annex II,
in particular measures to ensure that the hydromorphological conditions of the bodies of water are
consistent with the achievement of the required ecological status or good ecological potential for bodies of
water designated as artificial or heavily modified. Controls for this purpose may take the form of a
requirement for prior authorisation or registration based on general binding rules where such a
requirement is not otherwise provided for under Community legislation. Such controls shall be periodically
reviewed and, where necessary, updated;

(j) a prohibition of direct discharges of pollutants into groundwater subject to the following provisions:

Member States may authorise reinjection into the same aquifer of water used for geothermal purposes.

They may also authorise, specifying the conditions for:

- injection of water containing substances resulting from the operations for exploration and extraction of
hydrocarbons or mining activities, and injection of water for technical reasons, into geological formations
from which hydrocarbons or other substances have been extracted or into geological formations which for
natural reasons are permanently unsuitable for other purposes. Such injections shall not contain
substances other than those resulting from the above operations,

- reinjection of pumped groundwater from mines and quarries or associated with the construction or
maintenance of civil engineering works,

- injection of natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) for storage purposes into geological formations
which for natural reasons are permanently unsuitable for other purposes,

- injection of natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) for storage purposes into other geological
formations where there is an overriding need for security of gas supply, and where the injection is such as
to prevent any present or future danger of deterioration in the quality of any receiving groundwater,

- construction, civil engineering and building works and similar activities on, or in the ground which come
into contact with groundwater. For these purposes, Member States may determine that such activities are
to be treated as having been authorised provided that they are conducted in accordance with general
binding rules developed by the Member State in respect of such activities,

- discharges of small quantities of substances for scientific purposes for characterisation, protection or
remediation of water bodies limited to the amount strictly necessary for the purposes concerned

provided such discharges do not compromise the achievement of the environmental objectives established
for that body of groundwater;

(k) in accordance with action taken pursuant to Article 16, measures to eliminate pollution of surface
waters by those substances specified in the list of priority substances agreed pursuant to Article 16(2) and
to progressively reduce pollution by other substances which would otherwise prevent Member States from
achieving the objectives for the bodies of surface waters as set out in Article 4;

(l) any measures required to prevent significant losses of pollutants from technical installations, and to
prevent and/or to reduce the impact of accidental pollution incidents for example as a result of floods,
including through systems to detect or give warning of such events including, in the case of accidents
which could not reasonably have been foreseen, all appropriate measures to reduce the risk to aquatic
ecosystems.

4. "Supplementary" measures are those measures designed and implemented in addition to the basic
measures, with the aim of achieving the objectives established pursuant to Article 4. Part B of Annex VI
contains a non-exclusive list of such measures.

Member States may also adopt further supplementary measures in order to provide for additional
protection or improvement of the waters covered by this Directive, including in implementation of the
relevant international agreements referred to in Article 1.

5. Where monitoring or other data indicate that the objectives set under Article 4 for the body of water are
unlikely to be achieved, the Member State shall ensure that:

- the causes of the possible failure are investigated,

- relevant permits and authorisations are examined and reviewed as appropriate,

- the monitoring programmes are reviewed and adjusted as appropriate, and

- additional measures as may be necessary in order to achieve those objectives are established, including,
as appropriate, the establishment of stricter environmental quality standards following the procedures laid
down in Annex V.

Where those causes are the result of circumstances of natural cause or force majeure which are
exceptional and could not reasonably have been foreseen, in particular extreme floods and prolonged
droughts, the Member State may determine that additional measures are not practicable, subject to Article
4(6).
6. In implementing measures pursuant to paragraph 3, Member States shall take all appropriate steps not
to increase pollution of marine waters. Without prejudice to existing legislation, the application of measures
taken pursuant to paragraph 3 may on no account lead, either directly or indirectly to increased pollution
of surface waters. This requirement shall not apply where it would result in increased pollution of the
environment as a whole.

7. The programmes of measures shall be established at the latest nine years after the date of entry into
force of this Directive and all the measures shall be made operational at the latest 12 years after that date.

8. The programmes of measures shall be reviewed, and if necessary updated at the latest 15 years after
the date of entry into force of this Directive and every six years thereafter. Any new or revised measures
established under an updated programme shall be made operational within three years of their
establishment.

Article 12

Issues which can not be dealt with at Member State level

1. Where a Member State identifies an issue which has an impact on the management of its water but
cannot be resolved by that Member State, it may report the issue to the Commission and any other
Member State concerned and may make recommendations for the resolution of it.

2. The Commission shall respond to any report or recommendations from Member States within a period of
six months.

Article 13

River basin management plans

1. Member States shall ensure that a river basin management plan is produced for each river basin district
lying entirely within their territory.

2. In the case of an international river basin district falling entirely within the Community, Member States
shall ensure coordination with the aim of producing a single international river basin management plan.
Where such an international river basin management plan is not produced, Member States shall produce
river basin management plans covering at least those parts of the international river basin district falling
within their territory to achieve the objectives of this Directive.

3. In the case of an international river basin district extending beyond the boundaries of the Community,
Member States shall endeavour to produce a single river basin management plan, and, where this is not
possible, the plan shall at least cover the portion of the international river basin district lying within the
territory of the Member State concerned.

4. The river basin management plan shall include the information detailed in Annex VII.

5. River basin management plans may be supplemented by the production of more detailed programmes
and management plans for sub-basin, sector, issue, or water type, to deal with particular aspects of water
management. Implementation of these measures shall not exempt Member States from any of their
obligations under the rest of this Directive.

6. River basin management plans shall be published at the latest nine years after the date of entry into
force of this Directive.

7. River basin management plans shall be reviewed and updated at the latest 15 years after the date of
entry into force of this Directive and every six years thereafter.

Article 14

Public information and consultation

1. Member States shall encourage the active involvement of all interested parties in the implementation of
this Directive, in particular in the production, review and updating of the river basin management plans.
Member States shall ensure that, for each river basin district, they publish and make available for
comments to the public, including users:

(a) a timetable and work programme for the production of the plan, including a statement of the
consultation measures to be taken, at least three years before the beginning of the period to which the
plan refers;

(b) an interim overview of the significant water management issues identified in the river basin, at least
two years before the beginning of the period to which the plan refers;

(c) draft copies of the river basin management plan, at least one year before the beginning of the period to
which the plan refers.

On request, access shall be given to background documents and information used for the development of
the draft river basin management plan.

2. Member States shall allow at least six months to comment in writing on those documents in order to
allow active involvement and consultation.

3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall apply equally to updated river basin management plans.

Article 15
Reporting

1. Member States shall send copies of the river basin management plans and all subsequent updates to the
Commission and to any other Member State concerned within three months of their publication:

(a) for river basin districts falling entirely within the territory of a Member State, all river management
plans covering that national territory and published pursuant to Article 13;

(b) for international river basin districts, at least the part of the river basin management plans covering the
territory of the Member State.

2. Member States shall submit summary reports of:

- the analyses required under Article 5, and

- the monitoring programmes designed under Article 8

undertaken for the purposes of the first river basin management plan within three months of their
completion.

3. Member States shall, within three years of the publication of each river basin management plan or
update under Article 13, submit an interim report describing progress in the implementation of the planned
programme of measures.

Article 16

Strategies against pollution of water

1. The European Parliament and the Council shall adopt specific measures against pollution of water by
individual pollutants or groups of pollutants presenting a significant risk to or via the aquatic environment,
including such risks to waters used for the abstraction of drinking water. For those pollutants measures
shall be aimed at the progressive reduction and, for priority hazardous substances, as defined in Article
2(30), at the cessation or phasing-out of discharges, emissions and losses. Such measures shall be
adopted acting on the proposals presented by the Commission in accordance with the procedures laid
down in the Treaty.

2. The Commission shall submit a proposal setting out a list of priority substances selected amongst those
which present a significant risk to or via the aquatic environment. Substances shall be prioritised for action
on the basis of risk to or via the aquatic environment, identified by:

(a) risk assessment carried out under Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93(22), Council Directive
91/414/EEC(23), and Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(24), or

(b) targeted risk-based assessment (following the methodology of Regulation (EEC) No 793/93) focusing
solely on aquatic ecotoxicity and on human toxicity via the aquatic environment.

When necessary in order to meet the timetable laid down in paragraph 4, substances shall be prioritised
for action on the basis of risk to, or via the aquatic environment, identified by a simplified risk-based
assessment procedure based on scientific principles taking particular account of:

- evidence regarding the intrinsic hazard of the substance concerned, and in particular its aquatic
ecotoxicity and human toxicity via aquatic exposure routes, and

- evidence from monitoring of widespread environmental contamination, and

- other proven factors which may indicate the possibility of widespread environmental contamination, such
as production or use volume of the substance concerned, and use patterns.

3. The Commission's proposal shall also identify the priority hazardous substances. In doing so, the
Commission shall take into account the selection of substances of concern undertaken in the relevant
Community legislation regarding hazardous substances or relevant international agreements.

4. The Commission shall review the adopted list of priority substances at the latest four years after the
date of entry into force of this Directive and at least every four years thereafter, and come forward with
proposals as appropriate.

5. In preparing its proposal, the Commission shall take account of recommendations from the Scientific
Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment, Member States, the European Parliament, the
European Environment Agency, Community research programmes, international organisations to which the
Community is a party, European business organisations including those representing small and medium-
sized enterprises, European environmental organisations, and of other relevant information which comes to
its attention.

6. For the priority substances, the Commission shall submit proposals of controls for:

- the progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and losses of the substances concerned, and, in
particular

- the cessation or phasing-out of discharges, emissions and losses of the substances as identified in
accordance with paragraph 3, including an appropriate timetable for doing so. The timetable shall not
exceed 20 years after the adoption of these proposals by the European Parliament and the Council in
accordance with the provisions of this Article.

In doing so it shall identify the appropriate cost-effective and proportionate level and combination of
product and process controls for both point and diffuse sources and take account of Community-wide
uniform emission limit values for process controls. Where appropriate, action at Community level for
process controls may be established on a sector-by-sector basis. Where product controls include a review
of the relevant authorisations issued under Directive 91/414/EEC and Directive 98/8/EC, such reviews shall
be carried out in accordance with the provisions of those Directives. Each proposal for controls shall specify
arrangements for their review, updating and for assessment of their effectiveness.

7. The Commission shall submit proposals for quality standards applicable to the concentrations of the
priority substances in surface water, sediments or biota.

8. The Commission shall submit proposals, in accordance with paragraphs 6 and 7, and at least for
emission controls for point sources and environmental quality standards within two years of the inclusion of
the substance concerned on the list of priority substances. For substances included in the first list of
priority substances, in the absence of agreement at Community level six years after the date of entry into
force of this Directive, Member States shall establish environmental quality standards for these substances
for all surface waters affected by discharges of those substances, and controls on the principal sources of
such discharges, based, inter alia, on consideration of all technical reduction options. For substances
subsequently included in the list of priority substances, in the absence of agreement at Community level,
Member States shall take such action five years after the date of inclusion in the list.

9. The Commission may prepare strategies against pollution of water by any other pollutants or groups of
pollutants, including any pollution which occurs as a result of accidents.

10. In preparing its proposals under paragraphs 6 and 7, the Commission shall also review all the
Directives listed in Annex IX. It shall propose, by the deadline in paragraph 8, a revision of the controls in
Annex IX for all those substances which are included in the list of priority substances and shall propose the
appropriate measures including the possible repeal of the controls under Annex IX for all other substances.

All the controls in Annex IX for which revisions are proposed shall be repealed by the date of entry into
force of those revisions.

11. The list of priority substances of substances mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3 proposed by the
Commission shall, on its adoption by the European Parliament and the Council, become Annex X to this
Directive. Its revision mentioned in paragraph 4 shall follow the same procedure.

Article 17

Strategies to prevent and control pollution of groundwater

1. The European Parliament and the Council shall adopt specific measures to prevent and control
groundwater pollution. Such measures shall be aimed at achieving the objective of good groundwater
chemical status in accordance with Article 4(1)(b) and shall be adopted, acting on the proposal presented
within two years after the entry into force of this Directive, by the Commission in accordance with the
procedures laid down in the Treaty.

2. In proposing measures the Commission shall have regard to the analysis carried out according to Article
5 and Annex II. Such measures shall be proposed earlier if data are available and shall include:

(a) criteria for assessing good groundwater chemical status, in accordance with Annex II.2.2 and Annex V
2.3.2 and 2.4.5;

(b) criteria for the identification of significant and sustained upward trends and for the definition of starting
points for trend reversals to be used in accordance with Annex V 2.4.4.

3. Measures resulting from the application of paragraph 1 shall be included in the programmes of
measures required under Article 11.

4. In the absence of criteria adopted under paragraph 2 at Community level, Member States shall establish
appropriate criteria at the latest five years after the date of entry into force of this Directive.

5. In the absence of criteria adopted under paragraph 4 at national level, trend reversal shall take as its
starting point a maximum of 75 % of the level of the quality standards set out in existing Community
legislation applicable to groundwater.

Article 18

Commission report

1. The Commission shall publish a report on the implementation of this Directive at the latest 12 years
after the date of entry into force of this Directive and every six years thereafter, and shall submit it to the
European Parliament and to the Council.

2. The report shall include the following:

(a) a review of progress in the implementation of the Directive;

(b) a review of the status of surface water and groundwater in the Community undertaken in coordination
with the European Environment Agency;

(c) a survey of the river basin management plans submitted in accordance with Article 15, including
suggestions for the improvement of future plans;

(d) a summary of the response to each of the reports or recommendations to the Commission made by
Member States pursuant to Article 12;

(e) a summary of any proposals, control measures and strategies developed under Article 16;
(f) a summary of the responses to comments made by the European Parliament and the Council on
previous implementation reports.

3. The Commission shall also publish a report on progress in implementation based on the summary
reports that Member States submit under Article 15(2), and submit it to the European Parliament and the
Member States, at the latest two years after the dates referred to in Articles 5 and 8.

4. The Commission shall, within three years of the publication of each report under paragraph 1, publish an
interim report describing progress in implementation on the basis of the interim reports of the Member
States as mentioned in Article 15(3). This shall be submitted to the European Parliament and to the
Council.

5. The Commission shall convene when appropriate, in line with the reporting cycle, a conference of
interested parties on Community water policy from each of the Member States, to comment on the
Commission's implementation reports and to share experiences.

Participants should include representatives from the competent authorities, the European Parliament,
NGOs, the social and economic partners, consumer bodies, academics and other experts.

Article 19

Plans for future Community measures

1. Once a year, the Commission shall for information purposes present to the Committee referred to in
Article 21 an indicative plan of measures having an impact on water legislation which it intends to propose
in the near future, including any emerging from the proposals, control measures and strategies developed
under Article 16. The Commission shall make the first such presentation at the latest two years after the
date of entry into force of this Directive.

2. The Commission will review this Directive at the latest 19 years after the date of its entry into force and
will propose any necessary amendments to it.

Article 20

Technical adaptations to the Directive

1. Annexes I, III and section 1.3.6 of Annex V may be adapted to scientific and technical progress in
accordance with the procedures laid down in Article 21, taking account of the periods for review and
updating of the river basin management plans as referred to in Article 13. Where necessary, the
Commission may adopt guidelines on the implementation of Annexes II and V in accordance with the
procedures laid down in Article 21.

2. For the purpose of transmission and processing of data, including statistical and cartographic data,
technical formats for the purpose of paragraph 1 may be adopted in accordance with the procedures laid
down in Article 21.

Article 21

Regulatory committee

1. The Commission shall be assisted by a committee (hereinafter referred to as "the Committee").

2. Where reference is made to this Article, Articles 5 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having
regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.

The period laid down in Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be set at three months.

3. The Committee shall adopt its rules of procedure.

Article 22

Repeals and transitional provisions

1. The following shall be repealed with effect from seven years after the date of entry into force of this
Directive:

- Directive 75/440/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the quality required of surface water intended for the
abstraction of drinking water in the Member States(25),

- Council Decision 77/795/EEC of 12 December 1977 establishing a common procedure for the exchange of
information on the quality of surface freshwater in the Community(26),

- Council Directive 79/869/EEC of 9 October 1979 concerning the methods of measurement and
frequencies of sampling and analysis of surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking waters in the
Member States(27).

2. The following shall be repealed with effect from 13 years after the date of entry into force of this
Directive:

- Council Directive 78/659/EEC of 18 July 1978 on the quality of freshwaters needing protection or
improvement in order to support fish life(28),

- Council Directive 79/923/EEC of 30 October 1979 on the quality required of shellfish waters(29),
- Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against pollution
caused by certain dangerous substances,

- Directive 76/464/EEC, with the exception of Article 6, which shall be repealed with effect from the entry
into force of this Directive.

3. The following transitional provisions shall apply for Directive 76/464/EEC:

(a) the list of priority substances adopted under Article 16 of this Directive shall replace the list of
substances prioritised in the Commission communication to the Council of 22 June 1982;

(b) for the purposes of Article 7 of Directive 76/464/EEC, Member States may apply the principles for the
identification of pollution problems and the substances causing them, the establishment of quality
standards, and the adoption of measures, laid down in this Directive.

4. The environmental objectives in Article 4 and environmental quality standards established in Annex IX
and pursuant to Article 16(7), and by Member States under Annex V for substances not on the list of
priority substances and under Article 16(8) in respect of priority substances for which Community
standards have not been set, shall be regarded as environmental quality standards for the purposes of
point 7 of Article 2 and Article 10 of Directive 96/61/EC.

5. Where a substance on the list of priority substances adopted under Article 16 is not included in Annex
VIII to this Directive or in Annex III to Directive 96/61/EC, it shall be added thereto.

6. For bodies of surface water, environmental objectives established under the first river basin
management plan required by this Directive shall, as a minimum, give effect to quality standards at least
as stringent as those required to implement Directive 76/464/EEC.

Article 23

Penalties

Member States shall determine penalties applicable to breaches of the national provisions adopted
pursuant to this Directive. The penalties thus provided for shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.

Article 24

Implementation

1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply with this Directive at the latest 22 December 2003. They shall forthwith inform the Commission
thereof.

When Member States adopt these measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be
accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such
a reference shall be laid down by the Member States.

2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the texts of the main provisions of national law
which they adopt in the field governed by this Directive. The Commission shall inform the other Member
States thereof.

Article 25

Entry into force

DieThis Directive shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European
Communities.

Article 26

Addressees

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Luxembourg, 23 October 2000.

For the European Parliament

The President

N. Fontaine

For the Council

The President

J. Glavany

(1) OJ C 184, 17.6.1997, p. 20,

OJ C 16, 20.1.1998, p. 14 and

OJ C 108, 7.4.1998, p. 94.

(2) OJ C 355, 21.11.1997, p. 83.


(3) OJ C 180, 11.6.1998, p. 38.

(4) Opinion of the European Parliament of 11 February 1999 (OJ C 150, 28.5.1999, p. 419), confirmed on
16 September 1999, and Council Common Position of 22 October 1999 (OJ C 343, 30.11.1999, p. 1).
Decision of the European Parliament of 7 September 2000 and Decision of the Council of 14 September
2000.

(5) OJ C 209, 9.8.1988, p. 3.

(6) OJ C 59, 6.3.1992, p. 2.

(7) OJ C 49, 28.2.1995, p. 1.

(8) OJ L 20, 26.1.1980, p. 43. Directive as amended by Directive 91/692/EEC (OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p.
48).

(9) OJ C 355, 25.11.1996, p. 1.

(10) OJ C 281, 26.9.1996, p. 3.

(11) OJ L 73, 16.3.1994, p. 19.

(12) OJ L 104, 3.4.1998, p. 1.

(13) OJ L 240, 19.9.1977, p 1.

(14) OJ L 67, 12.3.1983, p. 1.

(15) OJ L 186, 5.8.1995, p. 42.

(16) OJ L 229, 30.8.1980, p. 11. Directive as last amended by Directive 98/83/EC (OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p.
32).

(17) OJ C 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23.

(18) OJ L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23. Directive as amended by Directive 91/692/EEC (OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p.
48).

(19) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26.

(20) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40. Directive as amended by Commission Directive 98/15/EC (OJ L 67,
7.3.1998, p. 29).

(21) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1.

(22) OJ L 84, 5.4.1993, p. 1.

(23) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1. Directive as last amended by Directive 98/47/EC (OJ L 191, 7.7.1998, p.
50).

(24) OJ L 123, 24.4.1998, p. 1.

(25) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 26. Directive as last amended by Directive 91/692/EEC.

(26) OJ L 334, 24.12.1977, p. 29. Decision as last amended by the 1994 Act of Accession.

(27) OJ L 271, 29.10.1979, p. 44. Directive as last amended by the 1994 Act of Accession.

(28) OJ L 222, 14.8.1978, p. 1. Directive as last amended by the 1994 Act of Accession.

(29) OJ L 281, 10.11.1979, p. 47. Directive as amended by Directive 91/692/EEC.

ANNEX I

INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR THE LIST OF COMPETENT AUTHORITIES

As required under Article 3(8), the Member States shall provide the following information on all competent
authorities within each of its river basin districts as well as the portion of any international river basin
district lying within their territory.

(i) Name and address of the competent authority - the official name and address of the authority identified
under Article 3(2).

(ii) Geographical coverage of the river basin district - the names of the main rivers within the river basin
district together with a precise description of the boundaries of the river basin district. This information
should as far as possible be available for introduction into a geographic information system (GIS) and/or
the geographic information system of the Commission (GISCO).

(iii) Legal status of competent authority - a description of the legal status of the competent authority and,
where relevant, a summary or copy of its statute, founding treaty or equivalent legal document.

(iv) Responsibilities - a description of the legal and administrative responsibilities of each competent
authority and of its role within each river basin district.
(v) Membership - where the competent authority acts as a coordinating body for other competent
authorities, a list is required of these bodies together with a summary of the institutional relationships
established in order to ensure coordination.

(vi) International relationships - where a river basin district covers the territory of more than one Member
State or includes the territory of non-Member States, a summary is required of the institutional
relationships established in order to ensure coordination.

ANNEX II

1 SURFACE WATERS

1.1. Characterisation of surface water body types

Member States shall identify the location and boundaries of bodies of surface water and shall carry out an
initial characterisation of all such bodies in accordance with the following methodology. Member States
may group surface water bodies together for the purposes of this initial characterisation.

(i) The surface water bodies within the river basin district shall be identified as falling within either one of
the following surface water categories - rivers, lakes, transitional waters or coastal waters - or as artificial
surface water bodies or heavily modified surface water bodies.

(ii) For each surface water category, the relevant surface water bodies within the river basin district shall
be differentiated according to type. These types are those defined using either "system A" or "system B"
identified in section 1.2.

(iii) If system A is used, the surface water bodies within the river basin district shall first be differentiated
by the relevant ecoregions in accordance with the geographical areas identified in section 1.2 and shown
on the relevant map in Annex XI. The water bodies within each ecoregion shall then be differentiated by
surface water body types according to the descriptors set out in the tables for system A.

(iv) If system B is used, Member States must achieve at least the same degree of differentiation as would
be achieved using system A. Accordingly, the surface water bodies within the river basin district shall be
differentiated into types using the values for the obligatory descriptors and such optional descriptors, or
combinations of descriptors, as are required to ensure that type specific biological reference conditions can
be reliably derived.

(v) For artificial and heavily modified surface water bodies the differentiation shall be undertaken in
accordance with the descriptors for whichever of the surface water categories most closely resembles the
heavily modified or artificial water body concerned.

(vi) Member States shall submit to the Commission a map or maps (in a GIS format) of the geographical
location of the types consistent with the degree of differentiation required under system A.

1.2. Ecoregions and surface water body types

1.2.1. Rivers

System A

>TABLE>

System B

>TABLE>

1.2.2. Lakes

System A

>TABLE>

System B

>TABLE>

1.2.3. Transitional Waters

System A

>TABLE>

System B

>TABLE>

1.2.4. Coastal Waters

System A

>TABLE>

System B

>TABLE>
1.3. Establishment of type-specific reference conditions for surface water body types

(i) For each surface water body type characterised in accordance with section 1.1, type-specific
hydromorphological and physicochemical conditions shall be established representing the values of the
hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements specified in point 1.1 in Annex V for that surface
water body type at high ecological status as defined in the relevant table in point 1.2 in Annex V. Type-
specific biological reference conditions shall be established, representing the values of the biological quality
elements specified in point 1.1 in Annex V for that surface water body type at high ecological status as
defined in the relevant table in section 1.2 in Annex V.

(ii) In applying the procedures set out in this section to heavily modified or artificial surface water bodies
references to high ecological status shall be construed as references to maximum ecological potential as
defined in table 1.2.5 of Annex V. The values for maximum ecological potential for a water body shall be
reviewed every six years.

(iii) Type-specific conditions for the purposes of points (i) and (ii) and type-specific biological reference
conditions may be either spatially based or based on modelling, or may be derived using a combination of
these methods. Where it is not possible to use these methods, Member States may use expert judgement
to establish such conditions. In defining high ecological status in respect of concentrations of specific
synthetic pollutants, the detection limits are those which can be achieved in accordance with the available
techniques at the time when the type-specific conditions are to be established.

(iv) For spatially based type-specific biological reference conditions, Member States shall develop a
reference network for each surface water body type. The network shall contain a sufficient number of sites
of high status to provide a sufficient level of confidence about the values for the reference conditions,
given the variability in the values of the quality elements corresponding to high ecological status for that
surface water body type and the modelling techniques which are to be applied under paragraph (v).

(v) Type-specific biological reference conditions based on modelling may be derived using either predictive
models or hindcasting methods. The methods shall use historical, palaeological and other available data
and shall provide a sufficient level of confidence about the values for the reference conditions to ensure
that the conditions so derived are consistent and valid for each surface water body type.

(vi) Where it is not possible to establish reliable type-specific reference conditions for a quality element in a
surface water body type due to high degrees of natural variability in that element, not just as a result of
seasonal variations, then that element may be excluded from the assessment of ecological status for that
surface water type. In such circumstances Member States shall state the reasons for this exclusion in the
river basin management plan.

1.4. Identification of Pressures

Member States shall collect and maintain information on the type and magnitude of the significant
anthropogenic pressures to which the surface water bodies in each river basin district are liable to be
subject, in particular the following.

Estimation and identification of significant point source pollution, in particular by substances listed in Annex
VIII, from urban, industrial, agricultural and other installations and activities, based, inter alia, on
information gathered under:

(i) Articles 15 and 17 of Directive 91/271/EEC;

(ii) Articles 9 and 15 of Directive 96/61/EC(1);

and for the purposes of the initial river basin management plan:

(iii) Article 11 of Directive 76/464/EEC; and

(iv) Directives 75/440/EC, 76/160/EEC(2), 78/659/EEC and 79/923/EEC(3).

Estimation and identification of significant diffuse source pollution, in particular by substances listed in
Annex VIII, from urban, industrial, agricultural and other installations and activities; based, inter alia, on
information gathered under:

(i) Articles 3, 5 and 6 of Directive 91/676/EEC(4);

(ii) Articles 7 and 17 of Directive 91/414/EEC;

(iii) Directive 98/8/EC;

and for the purposes of the first river basin management plan:

(iv) Directives 75/440/EEC, 76/160/EEC, 76/464/EEC, 78/659/EEC and 79/923/EEC.

Estimation and identification of significant water abstraction for urban, industrial, agricultural and other
uses, including seasonal variations and total annual demand, and of loss of water in distribution systems.

Estimation and identification of the impact of significant water flow regulation, including water transfer and
diversion, on overall flow characteristics and water balances.

Identification of significant morphological alterations to water bodies.

Estimation and identification of other significant anthropogenic impacts on the status of surface waters.

Estimation of land use patterns, including identification of the main urban, industrial and agricultural areas
and, where relevant, fisheries and forests.
1.5. Assessment of Impact

Member States shall carry out an assessment of the susceptibility of the surface water status of bodies to
the pressures identified above.

Member States shall use the information collected above, and any other relevant information including
existing environmental monitoring data, to carry out an assessment of the likelihood that surface waters
bodies within the river basin district will fail to meet the environmental quality objectives set for the bodies
under Article 4. Member States may utilise modelling techniques to assist in such an assessment.

For those bodies identified as being at risk of failing the environmental quality objectives, further
characterisation shall, where relevant, be carried out to optimise the design of both the monitoring
programmes required under Article 8, and the programmes of measures required under Article 11.

2. GROUNDWATERS

2.1. Initial characterisation

Member States shall carry out an initial characterisation of all groundwater bodies to assess their uses and
the degree to which they are at risk of failing to meet the objectives for each groundwater body under
Article 4. Member States may group groundwater bodies together for the purposes of this initial
characterisation. This analysis may employ existing hydrological, geological, pedological, land use,
discharge, abstraction and other data but shall identify:

- the location and boundaries of the groundwater body or bodies,

- the pressures to which the groundwater body or bodies are liable to be subject including:

- diffuse sources of pollution

- point sources of pollution

- abstraction

- artificial recharge,

- the general character of the overlying strata in the catchment area from which the groundwater body
receives its recharge,

- those groundwater bodies for which there are directly dependent surface water ecosystems or terrestrial
ecosystems.

2.2. Further characterisation

Following this initial characterisation, Member States shall carry out further characterisation of those
groundwater bodies or groups of bodies which have been identified as being at risk in order to establish a
more precise assessment of the significance of such risk and identification of any measures to be required
under Article 11. Accordingly, this characterisation shall include relevant information on the impact of
human activity and, where relevant, information on:

- geological characteristics of the groundwater body including the extent and type of geological units,

- hydrogeological characteristics of the groundwater body including hydraulic conductivity, porosity and
confinement,

- characteristics of the superficial deposits and soils in the catchment from which the groundwater body
receives its recharge, including the thickness, porosity, hydraulic conductivity, and absorptive properties of
the deposits and soils,

- stratification characteristics of the groundwater within the groundwater body,

- an inventory of associated surface systems, including terrestrial ecosystems and bodies of surface water,
with which the groundwater body is dynamically linked,

- estimates of the directions and rates of exchange of water between the groundwater body and associated
surface systems,

- sufficient data to calculate the long term annual average rate of overall recharge,

- characterisation of the chemical composition of the groundwater, including specification of the


contributions from human activity. Member States may use typologies for groundwater characterisation
when establishing natural background levels for these bodies of groundwater.

2.3. Review of the impact of human activity on groundwaters

For those bodies of groundwater which cross the boundary between two or more Member States or are
identified following the initial characterisation undertaken in accordance with paragraph 2.1 as being at risk
of failing to meet the objectives set for each body under Article 4, the following information shall, where
relevant, be collected and maintained for each groundwater body:

(a) the location of points in the groundwater body used for the abstraction of water with the exception of:

- points for the abstraction of water providing less than an average of 10 m3 per day, or,
- points for the abstraction of water intended for human consumption providing less than an average of 10
m3 per day or serving less than 50 persons,

(b) the annual average rates of abstraction from such points,

(c) the chemical composition of water abstracted from the groundwater body,

(d) the location of points in the groundwater body into which water is directly discharged,

(e) the rates of discharge at such points,

(f) the chemical composition of discharges to the groundwater body, and

(g) land use in the catchment or catchments from which the groundwater body receives its recharge,
including pollutant inputs and anthropogenic alterations to the recharge characteristics such as rainwater
and run-off diversion through land sealing, artificial recharge, damming or drainage.

2.4. Review of the impact of changes in groundwater levels

Member States shall also identify those bodies of groundwater for which lower objectives are to be
specified under Article 4 including as a result of consideration of the effects of the status of the body on:

(i) surface water and associated terrestrial ecosystems

(ii) water regulation, flood protection and land drainage

(iii) human development.

2.5. Review of the impact of pollution on groundwater quality

Member States shall identify those bodies of groundwater for which lower objectives are to be specified
under Article 4(5) where, as a result of the impact of human activity, as determined in accordance with
Article 5(1), the body of groundwater is so polluted that achieving good groundwater chemical status is
infeasible or disproportionately expensive.

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40. Directive as last amended by Directive 98/15/EC (OJ L 67, 7.3.1998, p. 29).

(2) OJ L 31, 5.2.1976, p. 1. Directive as last amended by the 1994 Act of Accession.

(3) OJ L 281, 10.11.1979, p. 47. Directive as amended by Directive 91/692/EEC (OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p.
48).

(4) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1.

ANNEX III

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

The economic analysis shall contain enough information in sufficient detail (taking account of the costs
associated with collection of the relevant data) in order to:

(a) make the relevant calculations necessary for taking into account under Article 9 the principle of
recovery of the costs of water services, taking account of long term forecasts of supply and demand for
water in the river basin district and, where necessary:

- estimates of the volume, prices and costs associated with water services, and

- estimates of relevant investment including forecasts of such investments;

(b) make judgements about the most cost-effective combination of measures in respect of water uses to
be included in the programme of measures under Article 11 based on estimates of the potential costs of
such measures.

ANNEX IV

PROTECTED AREAS

1. The register of protected areas required under Article 6 shall include the following types of protected
areas:

(i) areas designated for the abstraction of water intended for human consumption under Article 7;

(ii) areas designated for the protection of economically significant aquatic species;

(iii) bodies of water designated as recreational waters, including areas designated as bathing waters under
Directive 76/160/EEC;

(iv) nutrient-sensitive areas, including areas designated as vulnerable zones under Directive 91/676/EEC
and areas designated as sensitive areas under Directive 91/271/EEC; and

(v) areas designated for the protection of habitats or species where the maintenance or improvement of
the status of water is an important factor in their protection, including relevant Natura 2000 sites
designated under Directive 92/43/EEC(1) and Directive 79/409/EEC(2).
2. The summary of the register required as part of the river basin management plan shall include maps
indicating the location of each protected area and a description of the Community, national or local
legislation under which they have been designated.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. Directive as last amended by Directive 97/62/EC (OJ L 305, 8.11.1997, p.
42).

(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1. Directive as last amended by Directive 97/49/EC (OJ L 223, 13.8.1997, p. 9).

ANNEX V

>TABLE>

1. SURFACE WATER STATUS

1.1. Quality elements for the classification of ecological status

1.1.1. Rivers

Biological elements

Composition and abundance of aquatic flora

Composition and abundance of benthic invertebrate fauna

Composition, abundance and age structure of fish fauna

Hydromorphological elements supporting the biological elements

Hydrological regime

quantity and dynamics of water flow

connection to groundwater bodies

River continuity

Morphological conditions

river depth and width variation

structure and substrate of the river bed

structure of the riparian zone

Chemical and physico-chemical elements supporting the biological elements

General

Thermal conditions

Oxygenation conditions

Salinity

Acidification status

Nutrient conditions

Specific pollutants

Pollution by all priority substances identified as being discharged into the body of water

Pollution by other substances identified as being discharged in significant quantities into the body of water

1.1.2. Lakes

Biological elements

Composition, abundance and biomass of phytoplankton

Composition and abundance of other aquatic flora

Composition and abundance of benthic invertebrate fauna

Composition, abundance and age structure of fish fauna

Hydromorphological elements supporting the biological elements

Hydrological regime

quantity and dynamics of water flow

residence time

connection to the groundwater body


Morphological conditions

lake depth variation

quantity, structure and substrate of the lake bed

structure of the lake shore

Chemical and physico-chemical elements supporting the biological elements

General

Transparency

Thermal conditions

Oxygenation conditions

Salinity

Acidification status

Nutrient conditions

Specific pollutants

Pollution by all priority substances identified as being discharged into the body of water

Pollution by other substances identified as being discharged in significant quantities into the body of water

1.1.3. Transitional waters

Biological elements

Composition, abundance and biomass of phytoplankton

Composition and abundance of other aquatic flora

Composition and abundance of benthic invertebrate fauna

Composition and abundance of fish fauna

Hydro-morphological elements supporting the biological elements

Morphological conditions

depth variation

quantity, structure and substrate of the bed

structure of the intertidal zone

Tidal regime

freshwater flow

wave exposure

Chemical and physico-chemical elements supporting the biological elements

General

Transparency

Thermal conditions

Oxygenation conditions

Salinity

Nutrient conditions

Specific pollutants

Pollution by all priority substances identified as being discharged into the body of water

Pollution by other substances identified as being discharged in significant quantities into the body of water

1.1.4. Coastal waters

Biological elements

Composition, abundance and biomass of phytoplankton

Composition and abundance of other aquatic flora

Composition and abundance of benthic invertebrate fauna


Hydromorphological elements supporting the biological elements

Morphological conditions

depth variation

structure and substrate of the coastal bed

structure of the intertidal zone

Tidal regime

direction of dominant currents

wave exposure

Chemical and physico-chemical elements supporting the biological elements

General

Transparency

Thermal conditions

Oxygenation conditions

Salinity

Nutrient conditions

Specific pollutants

Pollution by all priority substances identified as being discharged into the body of water

Pollution by other substances identified as being discharged in significant quantities into the body of water

1.1.5. Artificial and heavily modified surface water bodies

The quality elements applicable to artificial and heavily modified surface water bodies shall be those
applicable to whichever of the four natural surface water categories above most closely resembles the
heavily modified or artificial water body concerned.

1.2. Normative definitions of ecological status classifications

Table 1.2. General definition for rivers, lakes, transitional waters and coastal waters

>TABLE>

Waters achieving a status below moderate shall be classified as poor or bad.

Waters showing evidence of major alterations to the values of the biological quality elements for the
surface water body type and in which the relevant biological communities deviate substantially from those
normally associated with the surface water body type under undisturbed conditions, shall be classified as
poor.

Waters showing evidence of severe alterations to the values of the biological quality elements for the
surface water body type and in which large portions of the relevant biological communities normally
associated with the surface water body type under undisturbed conditions are absent, shall be classified as
bad.

1.2.1. Definitions for high, good and moderate ecological status in rivers

Biological quality elements

>TABLE>

Hydromorphological quality elements

>TABLE>

Physico-chemical quality elements

>TABLE>

1.2.2. Definitions for high, good and moderate ecological status in lakes

Biological quality elements

>TABLE>

Hydromorphological quality elements

>TABLE>

Physico-chemical quality elements


>TABLE>

1.2.3. Definitions for high, good and moderate ecological status in transitional waters

Biological quality elements

>TABLE>

Hydromorphological quality elements

>TABLE>

Physico-chemical quality elements

>TABLE>

1.2.4. Definitions for high, good and moderate ecological status in coastal waters

Biological quality elements

>TABLE>

Hydromorphological quality elements

>TABLE>

Physico-chemical quality elements

>TABLE>

1.2.5. Definitions for maximum, good and moderate ecological potential for heavily modified or artificial
water bodies

>TABLE>

1.2.6. Procedure for the setting of chemical quality standards by Member States

In deriving environmental quality standards for pollutants listed in points 1 to 9 of Annex VIII for the
protection of aquatic biota, Member States shall act in accordance with the following provisions. Standards
may be set for water, sediment or biota.

Where possible, both acute and chronic data shall be obtained for the taxa set out below which are
relevant for the water body type concerned as well as any other aquatic taxa for which data are available.
The "base set" of taxa are:

- algae and/or macrophytes

- daphnia or representative organisms for saline waters

- fish.

Setting the environmental quality standard

The following procedure applies to the setting of a maximum annual average concentration:

(i) Member States shall set appropriate safety factors in each case consistent with the nature and quality of
the available data and the guidance given in section 3.3.1 of Part II of "Technical guidance document in
support of Commission Directive 93/67/EEC on risk assessment for new notified substances and
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 on risk assessment for existing substances" and the safety factors
set out in the table below:

>TABLE>

(ii) where data on persistence and bioaccumulation are available, these shall be taken into account in
deriving the final value of the environmental quality standard;

(iii) the standard thus derived should be compared with any evidence from field studies. Where anomalies
appear, the derivation shall be reviewed to allow a more precise safety factor to be calculated;

(iv) the standard derived shall be subject to peer review and public consultation including to allow a more
precise safety factor to be calculated.

1.3. Monitoring of ecological status and chemical status for surface waters

The surface water monitoring network shall be established in accordance with the requirements of Article
8. The monitoring network shall be designed so as to provide a coherent and comprehensive overview of
ecological and chemical status within each river basin and shall permit classification of water bodies into
five classes consistent with the normative definitions in section 1.2. Member States shall provide a map or
maps showing the surface water monitoring network in the river basin management plan.

On the basis of the characterisation and impact assessment carried out in accordance with Article 5 and
Annex II, Member States shall for each period to which a river basin management plan applies, establish a
surveillance monitoring programme and an operational monitoring programme. Member States may also
need in some cases to establish programmes of investigative monitoring.
Member States shall monitor parameters which are indicative of the status of each relevant quality
element. In selecting parameters for biological quality elements Member States shall identify the
appropriate taxonomic level required to achieve adequate confidence and precision in the classification of
the quality elements. Estimates of the level of confidence and precision of the results provided by the
monitoring programmes shall be given in the plan.

1.3.1. Design of surveillance monitoring

Objective

Member States shall establish surveillance monitoring programmes to provide information for:

- supplementing and validating the impact assessment procedure detailed in Annex II,

- the efficient and effective design of future monitoring programmes,

- the assessment of long-term changes in natural conditions, and

- the assessment of long-term changes resulting from widespread anthropogenic activity.

The results of such monitoring shall be reviewed and used, in combination with the impact assessment
procedure described in Annex II, to determine requirements for monitoring programmes in the current and
subsequent river basin management plans.

Selection of monitoring points

Surveillance monitoring shall be carried out of sufficient surface water bodies to provide an assessment of
the overall surface water status within each catchment or subcatchments within the river basin district. In
selecting these bodies Member States shall ensure that, where appropriate, monitoring is carried out at
points where:

- the rate of water flow is significant within the river basin district as a whole; including points on large
rivers where the catchment area is greater than 2500 km2,

- the volume of water present is significant within the river basin district, including large lakes and
reservoirs,

- significant bodies of water cross a Member State boundary,

- sites are identified under the Information Exchange Decision 77/795/EEC, and

at such other sites as are required to estimate the pollutant load which is transferred across Member State
boundaries, and which is transferred into the marine environment.

Selection of quality elements

Surveillance monitoring shall be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year during the
period covered by a river basin management plan for:

- parameters indicative of all biological quality elements,

- parameters indicative of all hydromorphological quality elements,

- parameters indicative of all general physico-chemical quality elements,

- priority list pollutants which are discharged into the river basin or sub-basin, and

- other pollutants discharged in significant quantities in the river basin or sub-basin,

unless the previous surveillance monitoring exercise showed that the body concerned reached good status
and there is no evidence from the review of impact of human activity in Annex II that the impacts on the
body have changed. In these cases, surveillance monitoring shall be carried out once every three river
basin management plans.

1.3.2. Design of operational monitoring

Operational monitoring shall be undertaken in order to:

- establish the status of those bodies identified as being at risk of failing to meet their environmental
objectives, and

- assess any changes in the status of such bodies resulting from the programmes of measures.

The programme may be amended during the period of the river basin management plan in the light of
information obtained as part of the requirements of Annex II or as part of this Annex, in particular to allow
a reduction in frequency where an impact is found not to be significant or the relevant pressure is
removed.

Selection of monitoring sites

Operational monitoring shall be carried out for all those bodies of water which on the basis of either the
impact assessment carried out in accordance with Annex II or surveillance monitoring are identified as
being at risk of failing to meet their environmental objectives under Article 4 and for those bodies of water
into which priority list substances are discharged. Monitoring points shall be selected for priority list
substances as specified in the legislation laying down the relevant environmental quality standard. In all
other cases, including for priority list substances where no specific guidance is given in such legislation,
monitoring points shall be selected as follows:

- for bodies at risk from significant point source pressures, sufficient monitoring points within each body in
order to assess the magnitude and impact of the point source. Where a body is subject to a number of
point source pressures monitoring points may be selected to assess the magnitude and impact of these
pressures as a whole,

- for bodies at risk from significant diffuse source pressures, sufficient monitoring points within a selection
of the bodies in order to assess the magnitude and impact of the diffuse source pressures. The selection of
bodies shall be made such that they are representative of the relative risks of the occurrence of the diffuse
source pressures, and of the relative risks of the failure to achieve good surface water status,

- for bodies at risk from significant hydromorphological pressure, sufficient monitoring points within a
selection of the bodies in order to assess the magnitude and impact of the hydromorphological pressures.
The selection of bodies shall be indicative of the overall impact of the hydromorphological pressure to
which all the bodies are subject.

Selection of quality elements

In order to assess the magnitude of the pressure to which bodies of surface water are subject Member
States shall monitor for those quality elements which are indicative of the pressures to which the body or
bodies are subject. In order to assess the impact of these pressures, Member States shall monitor as
relevant:

- parameters indicative of the biological quality element, or elements, most sensitive to the pressures to
which the water bodies are subject,

- all priority substances discharged, and other pollutants discharged in significant quantities,

- parameters indicative of the hydromorphological quality element most sensitive to the pressure identified.

1.3.3. Design of investigative monitoring

Objective

Investigative monitoring shall be carried out:

- where the reason for any exceedances is unknown,

- where surveillance monitoring indicates that the objectives set out in Article 4 for a body of water are not
likely to be achieved and operational monitoring has not already been established, in order to ascertain the
causes of a water body or water bodies failing to achieve the environmental objectives, or

- to ascertain the magnitude and impacts of accidental pollution,

and shall inform the establishment of a programme of measures for the achievement of the environmental
objectives and specific measures necessary to remedy the effects of accidental pollution.

1.3.4. Frequency of monitoring

For the surveillance monitoring period, the frequencies for monitoring parameters indicative of physico-
chemical quality elements given below should be applied unless greater intervals would be justified on the
basis of technical knowledge and expert judgement. For biological or hydromorphological quality elements
monitoring shall be carried out at least once during the surveillance monitoring period.

For operational monitoring, the frequency of monitoring required for any parameter shall be determined by
Member States so as to provide sufficient data for a reliable assessment of the status of the relevant
quality element. As a guideline, monitoring should take place at intervals not exceeding those shown in the
table below unless greater intervals would be justified on the basis of technical knowledge and expert
judgement.

Frequencies shall be chosen so as to achieve an acceptable level of confidence and precision. Estimates of
the confidence and precision attained by the monitoring system used shall be stated in the river basin
management plan.

Monitoring frequencies shall be selected which take account of the variability in parameters resulting from
both natural and anthropogenic conditions. The times at which monitoring is undertaken shall be selected
so as to minimise the impact of seasonal variation on the results, and thus ensure that the results reflect
changes in the water body as a result of changes due to anthropogenic pressure. Additional monitoring
during different seasons of the same year shall be carried out, where necessary, to achieve this objective.

>TABLE>

1.3.5. Additional monitoring requirements for protected areas

The monitoring programmes required above shall be supplemented in order to fulfil the following
requirements:

Drinking water abstraction points

Bodies of surface water designated in Article 7 which provide more than 100 m3 a day as an average shall
be designated as monitoring sites and shall be subject to such additional monitoring as may be necessary
to meet the requirements of that Article. Such bodies shall be monitored for all priority substances
discharged and all other substances discharged in significant quantities which could affect the status of the
body of water and which are controlled under the provisions of the Drinking Water Directive. Monitoring
shall be carried out in accordance with the frequencies set out below:

>TABLE>

Habitat and species protection areas

Bodies of water forming these areas shall be included within the operational monitoring programme
referred to above where, on the basis of the impact assessment and the surveillance monitoring, they are
identified as being at risk of failing to meet their environmental objectives under Article 4. Monitoring shall
be carried out to assess the magnitude and impact of all relevant significant pressures on these bodies
and, where necessary, to assess changes in the status of such bodies resulting from the programmes of
measures. Monitoring shall continue until the areas satisfy the water-related requirements of the legislation
under which they are designated and meet their objectives under Article 4.

1.3.6. Standards for monitoring of quality elements

Methods used for the monitoring of type parameters shall conform to the international standards listed
below or such other national or international standards which will ensure the provision of data of an
equivalent scientific quality and comparability.

Macroinvertebrate sampling

>TABLE>

Macrophyte sampling

Relevant CEN / ISO standards when developed

Fish sampling

Relevant CEN / ISO standards when developed

Diatom sampling

Relevant CEN/ISO standards when developed

Standards for physico-chemical parameters

Any relevant CEN/ISO standards

Standards for hydromorphological parameters

Any relevant CEN/ISO standards

1.4. Classification and presentation of ecological status

1.4.1. Comparability of biological monitoring results

(i) Member States shall establish monitoring systems for the purpose of estimating the values of the
biological quality elements specified for each surface water category or for heavily modified and artificial
bodies of surface water. In applying the procedure set out below to heavily modified or artificial water
bodies, references to ecological status should be construed as references to ecological potential. Such
systems may utilise particular species or groups of species which are representative of the quality element
as a whole.

(ii) In order to ensure comparability of such monitoring systems, the results of the systems operated by
each Member State shall be expressed as ecological quality ratios for the purposes of classification of
ecological status. These ratios shall represent the relationship between the values of the biological
parameters observed for a given body of surface water and the values for these parameters in the
reference conditions applicable to that body. The ratio shall be expressed as a numerical value between
zero and one, with high ecological status represented by values close to one and bad ecological status by
values close to zero.

(iii) Each Member State shall divide the ecological quality ratio scale for their monitoring system for each
surface water category into five classes ranging from high to bad ecological status, as defined in Section
1.2, by assigning a numerical value to each of the boundaries between the classes. The value for the
boundary between the classes of high and good status, and the value for the boundary between good and
moderate status shall be established through the intercalibration exercise described below.

(iv) The Commission shall facilitate this intercalibration exercise in order to ensure that these class
boundaries are established consistent with the normative definitions in Section 1.2 and are comparable
between Member States.

(v) As part of this exercise the Commission shall facilitate an exchange of information between Members
States leading to the identification of a range of sites in each ecoregion in the Community; these sites will
form an intercalibration network. The network shall consist of sites selected from a range of surface water
body types present within each ecoregion. For each surface water body type selected, the network shall
consist of at least two sites corresponding to the boundary between the normative definitions of high and
good status, and at least two sites corresponding to the boundary between the normative definitions of
good and moderate status. The sites shall be selected by expert judgement based on joint inspections and
all other available information.

(vi) Each Member State monitoring system shall be applied to those sites in the intercalibration network
which are both in the ecoregion and of a surface water body type to which the system will be applied
pursuant to the requirements of this Directive. The results of this application shall be used to set the
numerical values for the relevant class boundaries in each Member State monitoring system.

(vii) Within three years of the date of entry into force of the Directive, the Commission shall prepare a draft
register of sites to form the intercalibration network which may be adapted in accordance with the
procedures laid down in Article 21. The final register of sites shall be established within four years of the
date of entry into force of the Directive and shall be published by the Commission.

(viii) The Commission and Member States shall complete the intercalibration exercise within 18 months of
the date on which the finalised register is published.

(ix) The results of the intercalibration exercise and the values established for the Member State monitoring
system classifications shall be published by the Commission within six months of the completion of the
intercalibration exercise.

1.4.2. Presentation of monitoring results and classification of ecological status and ecological potential

(i)

>TABLE>

(ii)

>TABLE>

(iii) Member States shall also indicate, by a black dot on the map, those bodies of water where failure to
achieve good status or good ecological potential is due to non-compliance with one or more environmental
quality standards which have been established for that body of water in respect of specific synthetic and
non-synthetic pollutants (in accordance with the compliance regime established by the Member State).

1.4.3. Presentation of monitoring results and classification of chemical status

Where a body of water achieves compliance with all the environmental quality standards established in
Annex IX, Article 16 and under other relevant Community legislation setting environmental quality
standards it shall be recorded as achieving good chemical status. If not, the body shall be recorded as
failing to achieve good chemical status.

>TABLE>

2. GROUNDWATER

2.1. Groundwater quantitative status

2.1.1. Parameter for the classification of quantitative status

Groundwater level regime

2.1.2. Definition of quantitative status

>TABLE>

2.2. Monitoring of groundwater quantitative status

2.2.1. Groundwater level monitoring network

The groundwater monitoring network shall be established in accordance with the requirements of Articles 7
and 8. The monitoring network shall be designed so as to provide a reliable assessment of the quantitative
status of all groundwater bodies or groups of bodies including assessment of the available groundwater
resource. Member States shall provide a map or maps showing the groundwater monitoring network in the
river basin management plan.

2.2.2. Density of monitoring sites

The network shall include sufficient representative monitoring points to estimate the groundwater level in
each groundwater body or group of bodies taking into account short and long-term variations in recharge
and in particular:

- for groundwater bodies identified as being at risk of failing to achieve environmental objectives under
Article 4, ensure sufficient density of monitoring points to assess the impact of abstractions and discharges
on the groundwater level,

- for groundwater bodies within which groundwater flows across a Member State boundary, ensure
sufficient monitoring points are provided to estimate the direction and rate of groundwater flow across the
Member State boundary.

2.2.3. Monitoring frequency

The frequency of observations shall be sufficient to allow assessment of the quantitative status of each
groundwater body or group of bodies taking into account short and long-term variations in recharge. In
particular:

- for groundwater bodies identified as being at risk of failing to achieve environmental objectives under
Article 4, ensure sufficient frequency of measurement to assess the impact of abstractions and discharges
on the groundwater level,
- for groundwater bodies within which groundwater flows across a Member State boundary, ensure
sufficient frequency of measurement to estimate the direction and rate of groundwater flow across the
Member State boundary.

2.2.4. Interpretation and presentation of groundwater quantitative status

The results obtained from the monitoring network for a groundwater body or group of bodies shall be used
to assess the quantitative status of that body or those bodies. Subject to point 2.5. Member States shall
provide a map of the resulting assessment of groundwater quantitative status, colour-coded in accordance
with the following regime:

Good: green

Poor: red

2.3. Groundwater chemical status

2.3.1. Parameters for the determination of groundwater chemical status

Conductivity

Concentrations of pollutants

2.3.2. Definition of good groundwater chemical status

>TABLE>

2.4. Monitoring of groundwater chemical status

2.4.1. Groundwater monitoring network

The groundwater monitoring network shall be established in accordance with the requirements of Articles 7
and 8. The monitoring network shall be designed so as to provide a coherent and comprehensive overview
of groundwater chemical status within each river basin and to detect the presence of long-term
anthropogenically induced upward trends in pollutants.

On the basis of the characterisation and impact assessment carried out in accordance with Article 5 and
Annex II, Member States shall for each period to which a river basin management plan applies, establish a
surveillance monitoring programme. The results of this programme shall be used to establish an
operational monitoring programme to be applied for the remaining period of the plan.

Estimates of the level of confidence and precision of the results provided by the monitoring programmes
shall be given in the plan.

2.4.2. Surveillance monitoring

Objective

Surveillance monitoring shall be carried out in order to:

- supplement and validate the impact assessment procedure,

- provide information for use in the assessment of long term trends both as a result of changes in natural
conditions and through anthropogenic activity.

Selection of monitoring sites

Sufficient monitoring sites shall be selected for each of the following:

- bodies identified as being at risk following the characterisation exercise undertaken in accordance with
Annex II,

- bodies which cross a Member State boundary.

Selection of parameters

The following set of core parameters shall be monitored in all the selected groundwater bodies:

- oxygen content

- pH value

- conductivity

- nitrate

- ammonium

Bodies which are identified in accordance with Annex II as being at significant risk of failing to achieve
good status shall also be monitored for those parameters which are indicative of the impact of these
pressures.

Transboundary water bodies shall also be monitored for those parameters which are relevant for the
protection of all of the uses supported by the groundwater flow.

2.4.3. Operational monitoring


Objective

Operational monitoring shall be undertaken in the periods between surveillance monitoring programmes in
order to:

- establish the chemical status of all groundwater bodies or groups of bodies determined as being at risk,

- establish the presence of any long term anthropogenically induced upward trend in the concentration of
any pollutant.

Selection of monitoring sites

Operational monitoring shall be carried out for all those groundwater bodies or groups of bodies which on
the basis of both the impact assessment carried out in accordance with Annex II and surveillance
monitoring are identified as being at risk of failing to meet objectives under Article 4. The selection of
monitoring sites shall also reflect an assessment of how representative monitoring data from that site is of
the quality of the relevant groundwater body or bodies.

Frequency of monitoring

Operational monitoring shall be carried out for the periods between surveillance monitoring programmes at
a frequency sufficient to detect the impacts of relevant pressures but at a minimum of once per annum.

2.4.4. Identification of trends in pollutants

Member States shall use data from both surveillance and operational monitoring in the identification of
long term anthropogenically induced upward trends in pollutant concentrations and the reversal of such
trends. The base year or period from which trend identification is to be calculated shall be identified. The
calculation of trends shall be undertaken for a body or, where appropriate, group of bodies of
groundwater. Reversal of a trend shall be demonstrated statistically and the level of confidence associated
with the identification stated.

2.4.5. Interpretation and presentation of groundwater chemical status

In assessing status, the results of individual monitoring points within a groundwater body shall be
aggregated for the body as a whole. Without prejudice to the Directives concerned, for good status to be
achieved for a groundwater body, for those chemical parameters for which environmental quality standards
have been set in Community legislation:

- the mean value of the results of monitoring at each point in the groundwater body or group of bodies
shall be calculated, and

- in accordance with Article 17 these mean values shall be used to demonstrate compliance with good
groundwater chemical status.

Subject to point 2.5, Member States shall provide a map of groundwater chemical status, colour-coded as
indicated below:

Good: green

Poor: red

Member States shall also indicate by a black dot on the map, those groundwater bodies which are subject
to a significant and sustained upward trend in the concentrations of any pollutant resulting from the impact
of human activity. Reversal of a trend shall be indicated by a blue dot on the map.

These maps shall be included in the river basin management plan.

2.5. Presentation of Groundwater Status

Member States shall provide in the river basin management plan a map showing for each groundwater
body or groups of groundwater bodies both the quantitative status and the chemical status of that body or
group of bodies, colour-coded in accordance with the requirements of points 2.2.4 and 2.4.5. Member
States may choose not to provide separate maps under points 2.2.4 and 2.4.5 but shall in that case also
provide an indication in accordance with the requirements of point 2.4.5 on the map required under this
point, of those bodies which are subject to a significant and sustained upward trend in the concentration of
any pollutant or any reversal in such a trend.

ANNEX VI

LISTS OF MEASURES TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE PROGRAMMES OF MEASURES

PART A

Measures required under the following Directives:

(i) The Bathing Water Directive (76/160/EEC);

(ii) The Birds Directive (79/409/EEC)(1);

(iii) The Drinking Water Directive (80/778/EEC) as amended by Directive (98/83/EC);

(iv) The Major Accidents (Seveso) Directive (96/82/EC)(2);

(v) The Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC)(3);


(vi) The Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC)(4);

(vii) The Urban Waste-water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC);

(viii) The Plant Protection Products Directive (91/414/EEC);

(ix) The Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC);

(x) The Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)(5);

(xi) The Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Directive (96/61/EC).

PART B

The following is a non-exclusive list of supplementary measures which Member States within each river
basin district may choose to adopt as part of the programme of measures required under Article 11(4):

(i) legislative instruments

(ii) administrative instruments

(iii) economic or fiscal instruments

(iv) negotiated environmental agreements

(v) emission controls

(vi) codes of good practice

(vii) recreation and restoration of wetlands areas

(viii) abstraction controls

(ix) demand management measures, inter alia, promotion of adapted agricultural production such as low
water requiring crops in areas affected by drought

(x) efficiency and reuse measures, inter alia, promotion of water-efficient technologies in industry and
water-saving irrigation techniques

(xi) construction projects

(xii) desalination plants

(xiii) rehabilitation projects

(xiv) artificial recharge of aquifers

(xv) educational projects

(xvi) research, development and demonstration projects

(xvii) other relevant measures

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 10, 14.1.1997, p. 13.

(3) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. Directive as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5).

(4) OJ L 181, 8.7.1986, p. 6.

(5) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

ANNEX VII

RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT PLANS

A. River basin management plans shall cover the following elements:

1. a general description of the characteristics of the river basin district required under Article 5 and Annex
II. This shall include:

1.1. for surface waters:

- mapping of the location and boundaries of water bodies,

- mapping of the ecoregions and surface water body types within the river basin,

- identification of reference conditions for the surface water body types;

1.2. for groundwaters:

- mapping of the location and boundaries of groundwater bodies;

2. a summary of significant pressures and impact of human activity on the status of surface water and
groundwater, including:
- estimation of point source pollution,

- estimation of diffuse source pollution, including a summary of land use,

- estimation of pressures on the quantitative status of water including abstractions,

- analysis of other impacts of human activity on the status of water;

3. identification and mapping of protected areas as required by Article 6 and Annex IV;

4. a map of the monitoring networks established for the purposes of Article 8 and Annex V, and a
presentation in map form of the results of the monitoring programmes carried out under those provisions
for the status of:

4.1. surface water (ecological and chemical);

4.2. groundwater (chemical and quantitative);

4.3. protected areas;

5. a list of the environmental objectives established under Article 4 for surface waters, groundwaters and
protected areas, including in particular identification of instances where use has been made of Article 4(4),
(5), (6) and (7), and the associated information required under that Article;

6. a summary of the economic analysis of water use as required by Article 5 and Annex III;

7. a summary of the programme or programmes of measures adopted under Article 11, including the ways
in which the objectives established under Article 4 are thereby to be achieved;

7.1. a summary of the measures required to implement Community legislation for the protection of water;

7.2. a report on the practical steps and measures taken to apply the principle of recovery of the costs of
water use in accordance with Article 9;

7.3. a summary of the measures taken to meet the requirements of Article 7;

7.4. a summary of the controls on abstraction and impoundment of water, including reference to the
registers and identifications of the cases where exemptions have been made under Article 11(3)(e);

7.5. a summary of the controls adopted for point source discharges and other activities with an impact on
the status of water in accordance with the provisions of Article 11(3)(g) and 11(3)(i);

7.6. an identification of the cases where direct discharges to groundwater have been authorised in
accordance with the provisions of Article 11(3)(j);

7.7. a summary of the measures taken in accordance with Article 16 on priority substances;

7.8. a summary of the measures taken to prevent or reduce the impact of accidental pollution incidents;

7.9. a summary of the measures taken under Article 11(5) for bodies of water which are unlikely to achieve
the objectives set out under Article 4;

7.10. details of the supplementary measures identified as necessary in order to meet the environmental
objectives established;

7.11. details of the measures taken to avoid increase in pollution of marine waters in accordance with
Article 11(6);

8. a register of any more detailed programmes and management plans for the river basin district dealing
with particular sub-basins, sectors, issues or water types, together with a summary of their contents;

9. a summary of the public information and consultation measures taken, their results and the changes to
the plan made as a consequence;

10. a list of competent authorities in accordance with Annex I;

11. the contact points and procedures for obtaining the background documentation and information
referred to in Article 14(1), and in particular details of the control measures adopted in accordance with
Article 11(3)(g) and 11(3)(i) and of the actual monitoring data gathered in accordance with Article 8 and
Annex V.

B. The first update of the river basin management plan and all subsequent updates shall also include:

1. a summary of any changes or updates since the publication of the previous version of the river basin
management plan, including a summary of the reviews to be carried out under Article 4(4), (5), (6) and
(7);

2. an assessment of the progress made towards the achievement of the environmental objectives,
including presentation of the monitoring results for the period of the previous plan in map form, and an
explanation for any environmental objectives which have not been reached;

3. a summary of, and an explanation for, any measures foreseen in the earlier version of the river basin
management plan which have not been undertaken;

4. a summary of any additional interim measures adopted under Article 11(5) since the publication of the
previous version of the river basin management plan.
ANNEX VIII

INDICATIVE LIST OF THE MAIN POLLUTANTS

1. Organohalogen compounds and substances which may form such compounds in the aquatic
environment.

2. Organophosphorous compounds.

3. Organotin compounds.

4. Substances and preparations, or the breakdown products of such, which have been proved to possess
carcinogenic or mutagenic properties or properties which may affect steroidogenic, thyroid, reproduction or
other endocrine-related functions in or via the aquatic environment.

5. Persistent hydrocarbons and persistent and bioaccumulable organic toxic substances.

6. Cyanides.

7. Metals and their compounds.

8. Arsenic and its compounds.

9. Biocides and plant protection products.

10. Materials in suspension.

11. Substances which contribute to eutrophication (in particular, nitrates and phosphates).

12. Substances which have an unfavourable influence on the oxygen balance (and can be measured using
parameters such as BOD, COD, etc.).

ANNEX IX

EMISSION LIMIT VALUES AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STANDARDS

The "limit values" and "quality objectives" established under the re Directives of Directive 76/464/EEC shall
be considered emission limit values and environmental quality standards, respectively, for the purposes of
this Directive. They are established in the following Directives:

(i) The Mercury Discharges Directive (82/176/EEC)(1);

(ii) The Cadmium Discharges Directive (83/513/EEC)(2);

(iii) The Mercury Directive (84/156/EEC)(3);

(iv) The Hexachlorocyclohexane Discharges Directive (84/491/EEC)(4); and

(v) The Dangerous Substance Discharges Directive (86/280/EEC)(5).

(1) OJ L 81, 27.3.1982, p. 29.

(2) OJ L 291, 24.10.1983, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 74, 17.3.1984, p. 49.

(4) OJ L 274, 17.10.1984, p. 11.

(5) OJ L 181, 4.7.1986, p. 16.

ANNEX X

PRIORITY SUBSTANCES

ANNEX XI

MAP A

System A: Ecoregions for rivers and lakes

>PIC FILE= "L_2000327EN.007102.TIF">

1. Iberic-Macaronesian region

2. Pyrenees

3. Italy, Corsica and Malta

4. Alps

5. Dinaric western Balkan

6. Hellenic western Balkan

7. Eastern Balkan

8. Western highlands
9. Central highlands

10. The Carpathians

11. Hungarian lowlands

12. Pontic province

13. Western plains

14. Central plains

15. Baltic province

16. Eastern plains

17. Ireland and Northern Ireland

18. Great Britain

19. Iceland

20. Borealic uplands

21. Tundra

22. Fenno-Scandian shield

23. Taiga

24. The Caucasus

25. Caspic depression

MAP B

System A: Ecoregions for transitional waters and coastal waters

>PIC FILE= "L_2000327EN.007201.TIF">

1. Atlantic Ocean

2. Norwegian Sea

3. Barents Sea

4. North Sea

5. Baltic Sea

6. Mediterranean Sea

Commission statement

The Commission in its report under Article 17(3) will, with the assistance of the Member States, include a
cost-benefit study.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-536_en.htm

Environment: Commission refers Germany to Court


over incomplete cost recovery for water services
Brussels, 31 May 2012 - The European Commission is concerned Germany is not fully
applying the principle of cost recovery for water services. Under the Water Framework
Directive, Member States must price water in a way that provides an adequate incentive to
use it efficiently. Whilst Germany is of the opinion that such cost recovery should apply
only to the supply of drinking water and the disposal and treatment of wastewater, the
Commission considers that Germany's exclusion of other relevant activities such as hydro-
power from the definition of water services hinders the full and correct application of the
Water Framework Directive. Therefore, upon the recommendation of Environment
Commissioner Janez Potonik, the Commission has decided to refer the case to the
European Court of Justice.
The cost recovery principle for water services is designed to address the need to use water
resources efficiently, with proper regard to the consequences for society and the
environment. All EU Member States must also ensure that the main categories of water
users households, industry and agriculture contribute to the recovery of the costs of
water services, including the environmental and resource costs of water use, taking the
"polluter-pays" principle into account.
Under the Water Framework Directive, water services are a wide notion that includes
water abstraction for the cooling of industrial installations and for irrigation in agriculture;
the use of surface waters for navigation purposes, flood protection or hydro-power
production; and wells drilled for agricultural, industrial or private consumption.
On several occasions, the Commission has asked Germany to change its interpretation of
water services to ensure correct application of Article 9 of the Directive; by sending a
letter of formal notice to German authorities in November 2007, followed by another in
September 2010 and finally a reasoned opinion in September 2011. However at this time
Germany has not widened the scope of their interpretation of water services, so the
Commission is referring the case to the court.

Next Steps
The Commission is currently investigating similar cases involving water services in seven
other Member States Austria, Belgium (Flanders region), Denmark, Finland, Hungary,
Netherlands, Sweden and will also refer their cases to the Court if they remain
unresolved. While an additional case against Ireland is also open, Ireland has now
accepted the Commission's broad interpretation and agreed to change its legislation.

Background
The Water Framework Directive, which came into force in 2000, provides a framework for
integrated water management in river basin districts across the European Union. It obliges
Member States to protect and restore all bodies of ground water and surface water (rivers,
lakes, transitional and coastal water) to achieve "good status" by 2015 at the latest.

Northern Ireland revised water charges 2007


Director Public Services International Research Unit
d.j.hall@gre.ac.uk
August 2007 (with revised section 4 and annexe September 2007)
http://gala.gre.ac.uk/2935/1/2007%2D09%2DW%2DNIreland.pdf

European Communities irish (Water Policy) Regulations 2003 n a copy of the


European Communities (Water Policy)

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2014/si/350/made/en/pdf

Northern Ireland Water pricing in Europe 2010


http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/globalassets/Documents/RaISe/Publications/2
011/Regional-Development/9111.pdf
Best Practice Guide - leanbusinessireland.ie
The WFD has been transposed into Irish law by means of five main Regulations: 1. European
Communities (Water Policy) Regulations, 2003 (S.I. No. 722 of 2003

https://www.leanbusinessireland.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/2015-
Water-Control-24-August-1110.pdf

Group Water Schemes in Ireland - European Water Resources ...


Group Water Schemes in Ireland ... were transposed into Irish law by the European Communities ...
and Local Government on national policy on rural water ..

http://www.ewra.net/ew/pdf/EW_2010_29_05.pdf

European Union (Good Agricultural Practice for Protection of


Waters) Regulations 2014.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2014/si/31/made/en/pdf

Irish Water shall (a) ... any river basin management plans under regulation 13
of the European Communities (Water Policy) ... ( S.I. No. 722 of 2003) .

http://revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/2013/act/50/revised/en/pdf?annotations=
true

Rent Book Regulations (NI) 2007 Rent Book


services such as water or electricity with ... Rent Book Author: Northern Ireland ... A template
rentbook which complies to the Rent Book Regulations (NI) 2007

http://www.nihe.gov.uk/rent_book.pdf

NORTHERN IRELAND WATER 6 MONTH INTERIM REPORT OF


STRATEGIC ...
Providing research and information services to the Northern Ireland ... (KPIs) for Northern Ireland
Water 1st April 2007 - 30th September ... capital charges

http://archive.niassembly.gov.uk/regional/2007mandate/research/pdf/6Mont
h_Interim_Report.pdf

The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations (Northern ...


Citation and Commencement 1.(1) These Regulations may be cited as the Water Supply (Water
Quality) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007 and shall come into

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2007/147/made/data.pdf

Pollution Prevention Guidelines - gov.uk


October 2007 Environment Alliance - working together Pollution Prevention Guidelines Works and
maintenance in or near water: PPG5 ... Northern Ireland and Wales)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fi
le/485199/pmho1107bnkg-e-e.pdf

Investment plans

34. (1) Irish Water shall

(a) not later than 4 weeks after the transfer day, and

(b) before the end of the year in which the most recent investment plan expires,

make a plan (in this Act referred to as an investment plan) in accordance with this section.

(2) The investment plan first made after the transfer day shall apply in respect of the period
commencing on the date of the making of the plan and ending on 31 December 2015.

(3) Each investment plan made subsequent to the investment plan first made after the transfer day shall
apply in respect of such period as the Commission determines.

(4) An investment plan shall set out and particularise the investment in water services infrastructure
that Irish Water considers necessary for the effective performance by it of its functions.

(5) Irish Water shall, in making an investment plan, take account of

(a) the water services strategic plan,

(b) any river basin management plans under regulation 13 of the European Communities (Water
Policy) Regulations 2003 ( S.I. No. 722 of 2003) for the time being in force,

(c) any local area plans under section 18 of the Act of 2000 for the time being in force,

(d) any development plans within the meaning of the Act of 2000,

(e) any regional planning guidelines, and

(f) any strategic development zones within the meaning of Part IX of the Act of 2000 to which the plan
relates.

(6) Irish Water shall, before preparing an investment plan, consult with

(a) the Agency,

(b) each regional body in respect of whose functional area the investment plan is likely to apply, and

(c) each planning authority in respect of whose functional area the investment plan is likely to apply.
(7) Irish Water shall, for the purposes of enabling the Minister to make a decision in relation to the
making of a grant under section 36, provide the Minister with the most recent investment plan.

(8) Irish Water shall, when submitting a water charges plan to the Commission under section 22 ,
provide the Commission with the most recent investment plan.

(9) Irish Water shall, as soon as practicable after the approval of a water charges plan under section 22 ,
provide a copy of the most recent investment plan to each regional body and each planning authority in
respect of whose functional area the investment plan applies.

(10) In this section functional area has, in relation to a planning authority, the same meaning as it has
in the Act of 2000.

Waste Water Discharge Licence - epa.ie


grants this waste water discharge licence to Irish ... Tables 11 and 12 of Schedule 6 of the European
Communities ... Article 8 of the Water Policy Regulations.

http://www.epa.ie/licences/lic_eDMS/090151b2804fa810.pdf
European Union ... 2007/C 306/01 Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on
European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed
at Lisbon,
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/ecb/legal/pdf/en_lisbon_treaty.pdf
Treaty of Lisbon (2007) 2008 . 2 TABLE ... to in Article 121 of the Treaty
establishing the European Community (1992 ... the common foreign and
security policy
http://eudemocrats.org/eud/uploads/downloads/Consolidated_LISBON_TREAT
Y_3.pdf

TREATY OF LISBON AMENDING THE TREATY ON ... the European Community4 and the
Treaty establishing the ... Minister of Foreign Affairs THE PRESIDENT OF IRELAND

http://www.eutruth.org.uk/lisbontreaty.pdf
The European Union A Brief ... Second World War through to the entry into
force of the Treaty of Lisbon. Image: European ... Common Foreign and
Security Policy
http://www.parliament.scot/ResearchBriefingsAndFactsheets/S4/SB_11-44.pdf

Impact of the Lisbon Treaty on the Legal Competences of the ...


establishing the European Community. The Treaty of Lisbon has ... (the European Communities,
the Common Foreign ... common foreign and security policy shall .

https://www.ies.be/files/repo/conference2008/EUinIA_VIII_1_Wessel.pdf
AGENDA 21 CONTENTS ... management and use of water resources 18.1 ... it will
be deemed to include the European Economic Community
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf
Ballymore Eustace WWTP _ Waste Water Discharge Licence (WWDL) issued by EPA dated 17th
February 2011

Dear Mr. Deegan,


I refer to your letter to Mr. Tom Leahy, dated 28th. February 2011, in relation to the above matter. Mr.
Leahy is on leave at present and I am responding on his behalf. I apologise for the delay in replying.
I have asked Mr. Ray Earle, Eastern River Basin Project Coordinator to report to me in relation to the
points made in your letter and, accordingly, respond as follows:
1. Kildare County Council and WWTP.
The existing Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) at Ballymore Eustace serves a very small
population with P.E. <500. The Plant provides Primary Treatment only and discharges just downstream
of Ballymore Eustace Bridge (see maps attached).
The old plant will be decommissioned when the new WWTP is built. All design has been completed
on the new plant which will be located approx. 1km downstream of existing WWTP. The new plant
details are included in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Governments Water
Services Investment Programme 2010 to 2012 (WSIP) and initially included since 2005. Funding is the
critical issue.
The two bullet points above are strictly a matter for Kildare County Council to address in conjunction
with DEHLG or EPA. The relevant personnel in Kildare Water Services Section are John McGowan
SE, John ONeill SEE and Darren Hughes, Area Engineer working in conjunction with Mr. Joe
Boland, DOS.
Kildare County Council acknowledges that there is evidence of sewage fungus in the water.
However, KCC is satisfied that, based on testing carried out by the Mobile Monitoring Unit of the
ERBD, the discharge has no significant impact on the receiving waters.
Other discharges in the area include Blessington WWTP with a long pipeline
discharging to Golden Falls and the entire Upper Liffey was studied by the Mobile
Monitoring Unit of the ERBD and a report was published in 2009 in conjunction with the County
Councils of Kildare, South Dublin and Wicklow and Dublin City Council.
This Report is available if required.
2. Receiving Waters.
The Water body receiving the discharge has been addressed by all relevant
authorities in the ERBD River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) which was adopted
with Ministerial Comments on 6th July 2010 and with associated Programme of
Measures, and SEA/AA Statement. A statutory Public Consultation phase lasting 6 months resulted in
numerous submission on the Draft Plan including a submission from the Ballymore Eustace Trout and
Salmon Anglers Association, prior to the plan being adopted as a reserved function by each of the
twelve Local Authorities in the ERBD having considered all the submissions at Strategic Policy
Committed, Advisory Council and at full Council level.
The 6 year 1st cycle plan as adopted included Version 25 of the EPA status/classification and the
EPA details of the receiving water are as follows:

Waterbody name: EW_Liffey168_Liffey1.


Code: EA_09_1870_1
Status: Moderate (EPA V25)
Extended Deadline: 2021 (to reach good status)

There are two 2 no. EPA Q-value (Macroinvertebate) sites in the vicinity of the Ballymore Eustace
WWTP discharges.
a) Ballymore Eustace Bridge -100m u/s Q3 4 (2010)
b) Kimmeens approx 1km d/s Q4 (2010)
Accordingly, the water quality is actually at a better quality from a Q-value point of view
downstream and a Q4 suggests that the receiving waters at this point are very healthy.
3. Legislation.
The legislation requires that all discharges must be reviewed under the European
Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Water) Regulations, 2009 (S.I. No. 272 of 2009) by
the end of 2010, and Local Authorities have already begun this process.
The ERBD Office is Co-ordinating this work and assisting all twelve constituent Local Authorities
via training that is being provided in the new methodology by Consultant Mott MacDonald under the
auspices of the WSNTG and also via the use of the electronic River Basin Management System to
capture all the relevant data spatially and in tabular form.
Accordingly the 95 percentile concentrations upstream of the WWTP cited for BOD,
Orthophospate and Ammonia are scheduled to be reviewed under the new legislation and using the
new Assimilation Capacity methodology imminently. The new methodology takes account of
upstream and downstream waterbodies.
Wicklow County Council are responsible for any WWTP associated with Kilbride,
Lacken, Ballynockan and Valleymount which are located some distance from the Ballymore Eustace
WWTP.
4. Role of the ERBD Office.
The ERBD Office is engaged in meeting with each of the 12 no. constituent Local
Authorities at least three times per year to record progress on the implementation of the RBMP and the
Programme of Measures via the RBMS where all progress data, measures and actions are captured and
compared with the target objectives.
Ultimately it is a matter for Kildare County Council in the first instance to address issues relating to
Ballymore Eustace WWTP. Enforcement is also a matter for LAS and EPA. However the ERBD
Office will continue to co-ordinate reporting and performance which will highlight the priorities for
funding and progressing the detailed measures / actions adopted where any breach is likely. The
requirement to deliver on these measures / actions is now a statutory requirement by virtue of the
adoption by the Councils of the RBMP and associated Programme of Measures.
The Upper Liffey Report by the ERBD Office and Consultant CDM published in December 2009
concluded that there was no significant impact on waters arising from the small urban/village centres of
Kilbride, Lacken, Ballynockan and Valleymount. Notwithstanding this finding, Wicklow County
Council included a Blessington Lakes Sewerage Scheme (to provide treatment and collection system to
the villages surrounding Pollaphuca reservoir) in the 2009 Needs Assessment submitted to the
Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Unfortunately the Department did not
include this scheme in the 2010-2012 Water Services Investment Programme. As such Wicklow
County Council is not in a position to advance such a scheme at this time.
If you have any queries in relation to any of the above matters, please do not hesitate to contact Mr.
Ray Earle, ERBD Coordinator, at 087-8207905
Yours sincerely,

drian Conway,
A/Executive Manager (Engineering).
c.c Ray Earle

Reply from

Energy International
Oibriochtai Giniuna Generation Operations
Staisiun Giniuna Ard na Croise Ardnacrusha
Caislean an Chalaidh Generating Station
Luimneach Castlebank
Co. an Chlair Limerick
Co. Clare

The Honorary Treasurer,


Ballymore Eustace Trout & Salmon Anglers Association,
Broadleas,
Ballymore Eustace,
Co. Kildare.
April 10th 2011

Dear Mr. Deegan,


Your letter of the 28th February to our Chief Executive, Padraig McManus, refers. It has been passed
onto me for my attention.
In relation to the Waster Water License, dated 17th February 2011, issued to Kildare County Council,
it is not appropriate for ESB to comment as it is not the responsible body for these matters.
ESBs role on the upper Liffey catchment is set out in the Liffey Reservoir Act 1936 and relates to the
safe management of water flows on the Liffey. In this regards, ESB interacts and co-operates with all
the statutory bodies which operate in the Liffey catchment. ESB carries out its operations in accordance
with the highest international environmental standards.
I trust that this letter clarifies ESB role on the Liffey.
Yours Sincerely,
Senan Colleran
Hydro Manager
Generation Operations
ESB Energy International

Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association

Broadleas,
Ballymore Eustace,
Co. Kildare.
25th April 2012
Office of Environmental Enforcement,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Regional Inspectorate, McCumiskey House,
Richview,
Clonskeagh Road,
Dublin 14.

Dear Sir/Madam,

On behalf of the above Association I wish to complain in the strongest possible terms about the
polluted state of the River Liffey at Ballymore Eustace by an algae scum caused we believe by
nutrients from Wicklow County Councils Blessington WWTP discharge into Golden Falls Lake. This
scum like algae on the surface is seriously reducing the recreational and aesthetic value of the Liffey
and is totally unacceptable. It is impossible now for anglers to fly fish the Liffey at Ballymore Eustace
without getting their lines and flies covered in algae. Also, since there is a filamentous algae covering
the gravels there is a danger that this is harming the aquatic invertebrates, flora and fauna of the Liffey
and this needs to be investigated.

The Association reported a similar algae growth to the Office of Environmental Enforcement by letter
dated 13th April 2009 and again by letter dated 19th April 2010. In the mistaken belief that something
was being done to remedy the situation we did not report the matter in 2011. However, no action to
remedy the pollution has to our knowledge been taken by the EPA, Wicklow or Kildare County
Councils. This is totally unacceptable.

Since the algae is present upstream and downstream of Kildare County Councils overloaded sewage
treatment plant discharge at Ballymore Eustace, the Association believes that the source of the
pollution is nutrients from the Blessington Waste Water Treatment Plant. While Wicklow County
Councils Blessington WWTP discharges into Golden Falls Lake, the Lake itself is in County
Kildare. The ESB control the water flow through the Lake and Licensed the discharge.

Wicklow County Council should never have been allowed discharge effluent from Blessington WWTP
into Golden Falls Lake where a minimum dilution was not guaranteed and this injustice must be
rectified. The Association requests the Office of Environmental Enforcement, Environmental
Protection Agency to take immediate action to rid the Liffey of this horrible pollution. Indeed it is time
the EPA took a much firmer stance on all the sources of pollution to the Liffey at Ballymore Eustace.

Yours sincerely,

___________________________
Thomas Deegan
Honorary Treasurer
Copy: Mr. Eddie Sheehy, Manager, Wicklow County Council
Mr. Michael Malone, Manager, Kildare County Council
Mr. Pat ODoherty Chief Executive, Electricity Supply Board.
Mr. William Walsh, Inland Fisheries Ireland.

WICKLOW COUNTY COUNCIL


Water & Environmental Services
Aras An Chontae
Cill Mhantain
Water & Environmental Services
(0404) 20236
Waste Management (0404)20127 Fax No: (0404) 67792
E-Mail: env@wicklowcoco.ie Web: www.wicklow.ie
Our Ref: BD/AW
23rd May, 2012.

Mr. Thomas Deegan,


Honorary Treasurer,
Ballymore Eustace Trout & Salmon Anglers Association,
Broadleas,
Ballymore Eustace,
CO. KILDARE.

Re: Blessington Waste Water Treatment Plant.


Dear Mr. Deegan,
I wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 25th April, 2012.
I wish to refer to this Councils correspondence to you in February/March 2011. I made available to
you details of the Councils testing results for the Blessington Waste Water Treatment Plant for the
years 2008 to 2010. Furthermore, you were informed of the Councils proposals for monitoring in
2011. Wicklow County
Council did not receive any queries with regard to the content of the information submitted to the
Anglers Association.

In light of these circumstances, your correspondence suggests a non technical approach to denigrate the
reputation of Wicklow County Council and performance of the Blessington Waste Water Treatment
Plant without the submission of any evidence that this is the case.
The Treatment Plant is operated by Veolia Ireland Limited on behalf of Wicklow County Council and
discharges to the Golden Fall Lake which is downstream of Pollaphuca Dam and upstream of
Ballymore Eustace.

It was upgraded in 2007 and includes the provision of phosphate removal facilities as part of a
secondary treatment process. Thus the reduced concentration of phosphate (a nutrient) in the effluent
means it is unlikely to promote growth of algae in the Goldenfalls Lake. The quality of the discharge
from the Treatment Plant is monitored frequently and results indicate that the plant is operating within
its design parameters. The discharge is also meeting the requirements stipulated by the E.S.B. licence.
For your information, I am attaching the monitoring results for the Golden Falls Lake as follows:-
(a) Table 1 (enclosed) contains monitoring data for three stations (l) upstream of the Golden Falls, (2)
Goldenfall Mid Lake and (3) downstream of the Golden Falls for the years 2008 to 2011. The data
records the annual mean levels for Chlorophyll, Total Phosphorous, Ammonia, Faecal Conforms and
Total Coliforms. The results show compliance with the relevant Water Framework Directive
physiochemical criteria.
(b) Table 2 (enclosed) records detailed monitoring data for 2011 for the same three monitoring points.
The results show compliance with the relevant Water Framework Directive physiochemical criteria.
(c) Table 3 (enclosed) records relevant monitoring data for January, February and March 2012. The
results would not suggest that the algal problem is caused by the discharge to the lake.
(d) The Eastern River Basin District report titled Programme of Measures Pilot Study Upper
Liffey (December 2009) addressed the impact of discharges on Golden Falls lake (pages 45-53) and
concludes that there are no significant adverse impacts on the lake. On page 45 the report states
historically, Blessington Waste Water Treatment Plant has displayed elevated concentrations of
nutrients. However, recent water quality data has shown that water quality in the area was found to be
within standard limits.
CMD- Smith who have sampled Golden Falls on behalf of Wicklow County Council since February
2011 has not seen any algal bloom in the lake since that time and has not noticed any algal growth
below the dam while taking the downstream sample.
Wicklow County Council carries out monitoring of the Golden Falls Lake but does not monitor or
investigate downstream of the lake, which is in County Kildare. Therefore, Wicklow County Council
would not be aware of any other discharges to the River Liffey downstream of the lake and Ballymore
Eustace.
The results as set out above do not suggest that the Blessington discharge to be the cause of the algae
bloom. .
The last paragraph of your letter, while I note is for a broader audience is not applicable to the
Blessington Waste Water Treatment Plant at this time. If the Anglers Association can demonstrate that
Wicklow County Council is the source of pollution, I would ask them to present the evidence on the
basis of their examination of the results provided.
If there are concerns, the Councils Technical Staff are at all times willing to discuss the issues. The
County Council maintains close contact with our colleagues in Kildare County Council and have met
with them and discussed the situation on an ongoing basis.
I trust this information allows you to consider the matter further and if you have any queries, please do
not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Yours faithfully,
BRYAN DOYLE
DIRECTOR OF SERVICES,
WATER & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES.

ENCL.

BALLYMORE EUSTACE TROUT AND SALMON ANGLERS ASSOCIATION

Broadleas,
Ballymore Eustace,
Co. Kildare.
29th May 2012
Mr. Bryan Doyle,
Director of Services,
Water and Environmental Services,
Wicklow County Council,
County Buildings,
Wicklow.

Re: Blessington Waste Water Treatment Plant Discharge to Golden Falls Lake.

Dear Mr. Doyle,

Thank you for your letter dated 23rd May 2012 and enclosures.

It is most disappointing when professional people have to resort to personal attacks as their only line of
defence. I have no interest in trying to denigrate Wicklow County Council. My only concern is for the
water quality of the Liffey at Ballymore Eustace, Co. Kildare downstream of Golden Falls
Lake/Reservoir. As stated in the Eastern River Basin District report titled Programme of Measures
Pilot Study Upper Liffey which you yourself quoted historically, Blessington Waste Water
Treatment Plant has displayed elevated concentrations of nutrients. Also, the EPA has in the past
placed Golden Falls Lake in the Hypertropic Category i.e. a very high level of pollution. So, please get
off you high horse and maybe address you criticisms at the man in the mirror. Monitoring alone never
solved any problems as results have to be assessed and, if necessary, acted upon. I ask that Wicklow
County Council stop acting ostrich like with regard to the Blessington Waste Water Treatment Plant
discharge into Golden Falls Lake and work with the Association in trying to solve a perennial problem
of algae growth destroying the aesthetic and recreational value of the Liffey at Ballymore Eustace.
When granting a WWDL to Kildare County Council for the proposed new WWTP at Ballymore
Eustace, the EPA Inspector in her report dated 2nd February 2011 stated
The results of the assimilative capacity calculations are summarised as follows:

(i) Biochemical Oxygen Demand


At the design emission limit value (25 mg/l), there is no assimilative capacity in the
receiving water for BOD based on the quality standards under the European Communities
Environmental Objectives (Surface Water) Regulations, 2009, (S.I. No. 272 of 2009). Table 3.0
highlights that the 95%ile upstream concentration of BOD (6 mg/l) is already in breach of S.I. No. 272
of2009 before consideration of the WWTP discharge contribution.

However, the calculations in Table 3.0 indicate, for a notionally clean river, at an
emission limit value of 25 mg/l BOD at 2,000 p.e., there would be adequate assimilative capacity in the
receiving water for BOD, based on the 95%ile standard under S.I. 272 of 2009. The contribution from
the primary discharge is only 0.13 mg/l BOD. Therefore, the effluent design standard of 25 mg/l BOD
has been set as the emission limit value from 31 December 2012 in the RL.

(ii) Phosphorus
There is no assimilative capacity in the receiving water for orthophosphate based on the quality
standards under the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Water) Regulations,
2009, (S.I. No. 272 of 2009). Tables 3.0 highlights that the 95%ile upstream concentration of
orthophosphate (0.203 mg/l) is already in breach of S.I. No. 272 of 2009 before consideration of the
WWTP discharge contribution.
For a notionally clean river, at an emission limit value of 1 mg/l at 2,000 p.e., there would be adequate
assimilative capacity in the receiving water for orthophosphate based on the 95%ile standard under S.I.
272 of 2009. The contribution from the primary discharge is very small, 0.005 mg/l orthophosphate.
The RL sets an emission limit value of 2 mg/l for total phosphorus (the effluent design standard) and an
emission limit value of 1 mg/l for orthophosphate from 3 1 December 2012.
Condition 5 of the RL requires the licensee to continually reduce total phosphorus
emissions in the discharge.

(iii) Ammonia
There is no assimilative capacity in the receiving water for ammonia based on the 95%ile quality
standard under the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Water) Regulations,
2009, (S.I. No. 272 of 2009). Table 3.0 shows that 95%ile concentration upstream of ammonia (0.99
mg/l) is already in breach of S.I. No. 272 of 2009 before consideration of the primary discharge
contribution.
For a notionally clean river and an emission limit value of 5 mg/l at 2,000 p.e., there
would be adequate assimilative capacity in the receiving water for ammonia based on the 95%ile
standard under S.I. 272 of 2009. The contribution from the primary discharge is very small, 0.026 mg/l
of ammonia. Accordingly, the RL set an emission limit value of 5 mg/l for ammonia from 31
December 2012 to ensure compliance with S.I. No. 272 of 2009.
Condition 5.1 of the RL requires the licensee to continually reduce ammonia emissions

Table 3.0 above highlights that other measures need to be put in place to reduce high
background concentrations of BOD, orthophosphate and ammonia in the receiving waters upstream of
the WWTP if the River Liffey is to achieve good stutus under the Water Framework Directive. It is not
the role of the Wastewater Discharge Licence to address these other pollutant sources, it can only
address the waste water discharges.

I am aware that the above is based on background water quality data from January 2007 to February
2009 and that the Blessington WWTP was upgraded in 2007.

Because the problem shows up in County Kildare, maybe Wicklow County Council feels it doesnt
have to address these other pollutant sources, but the Association has no intention of letting matters
rest until the Liffey at Ballymore Eustace is as near as is possible to pollution free.
Looking at the monitoring results for Golden Falls Lake one thing sticks out like a sore thumb. There
could be up to a tenfold increase in the ammonia concentration in Golden Falls Lake and the
downstream samples in spring each year which coincides with the algae growth in the River Liffey.
Perhaps you can use your chemical knowledge and technical approach to convince me that this cannot
be attributed to Blessington WWTP discharge into Golden Falls Lake and that it is merely a
coincidence that it coincides with the algae growth in the River Liffey at Ballymore Eustace each year.
Even better, maybe something can be done to reduce the ammonia concentrations in the Golden Falls
Lake.

My understanding is that for ammonia the EQS for Surface Waters is 0.02 mg/l. The limit for the non-
ionised form of ammonia under the Freshwater Fish Directive is 0.025 mg/l while the limit for non-
ionised ammonia under the Salmonid Waters Regulations is 0.02 mg/l.

I include below a graph of the ammonia results from Golden Falls to illustrate and highlight the
situation.

Yours sincerely,

_______________________________
Thomas Deegan
Honorary Treasurer

(Why is the lower level of detection set 0.03 mg/l ?)

Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association

Broadleas,
Administration, Ballymore Eustace,
Environmental Licensing Programme, Co. Kildare.
Office of Climate, Licensing & Resource Use, 30th May 2012
Environmental Protection Agency,
Headquarters,
P.O. Box 3000,
Johnstown Castle Estate.
Co. Wexford.

Waste Waster Discharge Licence Application Register No: D0063-01

Dear Sir/Madam,
The above Association recently received a copy of the monitoring results of Golden Falls Lake from
Wicklow County Council for the period February 2011 March 2012. It is obvious from the results
that there is an increase in the concentration of ammonia in the Golden Falls Lake and downstream
samples in the Spring of the year which coincides with the perennial problem of algae growth in the
Liffey.

I have included a graph (with notes) to illustrate the occurrence.

The above Association respectfully requests the EPA to take this into account when processing the
above Waste Water Discharge Licence Application.

Yours sincerely,

_____________________________
Thomas Deegan
Honorary Treasurer

WICKLOW COUNTY COUNCIL


Water & Environmental Services

BD/AW
14th June, 2012.
Mr. Thomas Deegan,
Honorary Treasurer,
Ballymore Eustace Trout & Salmon
Anglers Association,
Broadleas,
Ballymore Eustace,
CO.KILDARE.
Re: Blessington Waste Water Treatment Plant

Dear Mr. Deegan,


I wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 29th May, 2012 (I did also receive email in relation
to this matter). The content of the correspondence is noted.
Wicklow County Council is anxious to move this debate forward. Part of the reasoning in your
responses has been to detail what has happened in the past prior to the Waste Water Treatment Plant
being constructed in Blessington. Your Group query the decision of the E.S.B. back in 1985 to give a
Licence to discharge to the
Golden Falls. The County Council is adamant that things have progressed since that time including the
provision of phosphate reduction treatment at the Blessington Wastewater Treatment Plant. This is of
significant benefit because phosphate is a
known contributor to the growth of aquatic plants and algae in inland waters.
I wish to address the technical nature of your argument outlined in your correspondence as follows.
1. The data used by the EPA in the Assimilative Capacity Report referenced by the Anglers
Association was from urban waste water returns (upstream and downstream of the Ballymore Waste
Water Treatment Discharge). It is the Councils understanding that this data was generated from staff
in the local Waste Water Treatment Plant using basic equipment. The council would feel that this data
should not have been used by the E.P.A. in their report considering that there were existing National
Monitoring Stations upstream and downstream for which reliable data is available. The data from these
stations and the results are far more realistic (see attachment) and compare well with the County
Council data below the Golden Falls dam for the same period. There were a number of outlying results
which caused averages to elevate but results from 2007-2009 confirmed good physiochemical status at
Ballymore Bridge.
2. The Council notes that the EPA. were quoting 95% results (highest 5% of results) in their report and
not average results i.e. extreme rather the normal situation. Even accounting for this the EPA report
figures are multiples of ten times higher than our results for the same period (see comparison of
dataattached).
3. The County Council is stating that the complaint would appear to be unfounded based on the
National River Monitoring Data and Wicklow County Council Golden Falls Monitoring Data for die
period 2007-2009 and also based on current data from 2011. The data shows from Golden Falls
monitoring and Kildares National River Monitoring that there is a
assimilative in capacity for the current set up at Blessington. The ammonia concentrations are close to
the limits and peaks have been experienced in the early part of this year. With regard to the limit for
(un-ionised) ammonia. I wish to point out the Council does not analyse unionised ammonia. The
Council is not required to do so under the Water Framework Directive. The Council is measuring and
quoting the sum of both forms of ammonia (un-ionised and ionised) referred to as total ammoniacal
nitrogen by the EPA. The limits for Good Status in the S.I. 272/2009 for total ammoniacal nitrogen are
average = 0.065mg/l n N, 95% = 0.14mg/l n N. Statistical data supplied shows the station monitored by
Wicklow, County Council downstream of Golden Falls is compliant with the limits as far as 2011 (data
attached).

I agree with the approach of the Anglers in seeking the best possible treatment being provided to
maintain river quality in the River Liffey. Wicklow County Council is fully committed with our partner
Veolia to operate the Blessington Wicklow Treatment Plant to the highest standard.
Yours faithfully,
BRYAN DOYLE,
DIRECTOR OF SERVICES,
WATER/& ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES.

Encl.

Another letter from the Association to the EPA


Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association

Broadleas,
Ballymore Eustace,
Co. Kildare.
25th March 2013
Office of Environmental Enforcement,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Regional Inspectorate, McCumiskey House,
Richview,
Clonskeagh Road,
Dublin 14.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Once again, on behalf of the above Association I wish to complain in the strongest possible terms about
the polluted state of the River Liffey at Ballymore Eustace by an algae scum caused we believe by
nutrients from Wicklow County Councils Blessington WWTP discharge into Golden Falls Lake. This
scum like algae on the surface is seriously reducing the recreational and aesthetic value of the Liffey
and is totally unacceptable. It is impossible now for anglers to fly fish the Liffey at Ballymore Eustace
without getting their lines and flies covered in algae. Also, since there is a filamentous algae covering
the gravels there is a danger that this is harming the spawning potential, the aquatic invertebrates, flora
and fauna of the Liffey and this needs to be investigated.

The Association reported a similar algae growth to the Office of Environmental Enforcement by letter
dated 13th April 2009 and again by letter dated 19th April 2010. In the mistaken belief that something
was being done to remedy the situation we did not report the matter in 2011. We reported the matter
again by letter dated 25th April 2012 and apart from the Office of Environmental Enforcement passing
the buck to its WWDA section, no action to remedy the pollution has to our knowledge been taken by
the EPA, Wicklow or Kildare County Councils. This is totally unacceptable.

Analytical results received from Wicklow County Council for 2011 and early 2012 we believe show a
relationship between the rising ammonia concentrations in Golden Falls Lake, the Liffey downstream
and the algae growth in the Liffey at Ballymore Eustace. No rise in ammonia levels are recorded for
Poulaphouca Reservoir upstream of Golden Falls Lake which indicates that the problem starts in
Golden Falls Lake. (See graph below) A WWDL was granted by the EPA to Wicklow County Council
on the 12th June 2012 but this did not address the problem.

Since the algae is present upstream and downstream of Kildare County Councils overloaded sewage
treatment plant discharge at Ballymore Eustace which is presently being replaced with a new WWTP,
the Association believes that the source of the pollution is nutrients from the Blessington Waste Water
Treatment Plant. While Wicklow County Councils Blessington WWTP discharges into Golden Falls
Lake, the Lake itself is in County Kildare. The ESB control the water flow through the Lake and
initially licensed the discharge into Golden Falls Lake.

Wicklow County Council should never have been allowed discharge effluent from Blessington WWTP
into Golden Falls Lake where a minimum dilution was not guaranteed but we must now live with this
injustice. However, we dont have to live with the pollution of the Liffey and the Association, once
again, requests the Office of Environmental Enforcement, Environmental Protection Agency, in
conjunction with the other relevant authorities, to carry out a thorough investigation into the effects of
the stop/start water flows into Golden Falls Lake and past the Blessington WWTP discharge point, on
the ammonia/pollution levels in the Lake. And, we also ask the EPA to take immediate action to rid the
Liffey downstream of this horrible pollution.
(Why is the lower level of detection set 0.03 mg/l ?)
Note no rise in low level ammonia concentration in the Poulaphouca Reservoir upstream sample

Yours sincerely,

___________________________
Thomas Deegan
Honorary Treasurer

Copy: Mr. Bryan Doyle, Director of Services, Wicklow County Council


Mr. Joe Boland, Director of Services, Kildare County Council
Mr. William Walsh, Inland Fisheries Ireland, Blackrock.

epa
Office of Environmental Enforcement

Mr. Thomas Deegan


Honorary Secretary
Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglos Association
Broadleas
Ballymore Eustace
Co. Kildare

Our ref: D0063-01/D0063-01 27032013 Response to Complaint.docx

10/04/2013

Dear Mr. Deegan,


I refer to your correspondance dated 25th March 2013, received by the Agency on 27th March 2013,
made on behalf of the Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association, in relation to
Wicklow County Councils waste water treatment plant (WWTP) at Blessington. As you may be aware
this WWTP holds a waste water discharge licence, reg. no. D0063-01, which was issued by the
Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) on 12th June 2012.
I note your concern in relation to this WWTP and I am to advise you that the Office of Environmental
Enforcement (OEE) has opened a Compliance Investigation (ref. no.CI000058) against the Blessington
licence reg. no. D0063-01. The current treatment plant at Blessington requires additional infrastructure
to meet me Ammonia emission limit value (ELV) of 5mg/l as stipulated in their EPA licence reg. no.
D0063-01.CI00058 was initiated in relation to the Ammonia ELV breaches at the facility and the
requirement for an upgrade at me WWTP to be completed.
Wicklow County Council have submitted a formal application to the Department of Environment,
Community and Local Government (DECLG) for their approval and funding for the proposed
upgrade of the existing wastewater treatment plant at Blessington. The proposed upgrade is to provide
sufficient treatment for a population equivalent of 9,500, while meeting the emission limit values stated
in the licence. A progress report is due to be submitted to the Agency on 28/06/2013.
In relation to your specific complaint on Ammonia, we have forwarded it to Wicklow County Council
requesting them to assess if the discharge is having an impact on Golden Falls Lake. Wicklow County
Council have been requested to respond to the EPA plus yourselves in relation to your complaint.
If you require any further assistance or information in relation to this matter please dont hesitate to
contact a member of Team B in OEE Wexford and the representative in charge of this plant in
Wicklow County Council. Please quote the above reference in future correspondence in relation to this
matter.
Yours sincerely

Inspector
Office of Environmental Enforcement
Team B- Wexford

WICKLOW COUNTY COUNCIL


Water & Environmental Services
County Buildings, Wicklow
Water & Environmental Services
(0404)20236

OEE Water (Wexford)


Office of Environmental Enforcement.
Environmental Protection Agency,
PO Box 3000,
Johnstown Castle Estate,
CO.Wexford.
24th April 2013

Dear Sir/Madam,
I refer to letter dated 25th March 2013 from the Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers
Association to the Environmental Protection Agency.
The letter complains of algae scum in the river Liffey at Ballymore Eustace, Co. Kildare and states that
the likely cause is the discharge from the Blessington waste water treatment plant.
Blessington wastewater treatment plant is operated by Veolia Water Ireland on behalf of Wicklow
County Council and discharges to the Golden Falls Lake, which is downstream of Pollaphuca Dam and
upstream of Ballymore Eustace.
The treatment plant was upgraded in 2007 in order to meet all of the wastewater treatment
requirements in force at that time. The upgrade works included the provision of phosphate removal
facilities.
The discharge from the treatment plant is monitored frequently and the results indicate that the plant is
operating within the parameters it was designed to do.
The Waste Water Discharge (Authorisation) Regulations 2007 require that all discharges from the
wastewater treatment plants be licenced by the Environmental Protection Agency. The Blessington
plant received its licence on 12th June 2012.
The licence requires that the discharges from the plant must not breach the Emission Limit Values for
certain parameters. Blessington has no problem in complying with this for most of the parameters
with the exception of ammonia.
The treatment plant was not designed to comply with the Emission Limit Value set for ammonia. In
order to achieve compliance it will be necessary to carry out a costly upgrade of the treatment facilities.
Wicklow County Council submitted a formal application to Department of the Environment
Community and Local Government earlier in 2013 seeking their approval and funding of the proposed
upgrade works at Blessington under the Departments Water Services Investment Programme. The
Council awaits the Departments decision.

Downstream Monitoring Results


Monitoring is carried out to the Golden Falls waters, which receives the Blessington discharge.
The most recent results (up to March 2013) are enclosed in APPENDIX A.

Table 1 shows the results for the mid-point of the Golden Falls lake, which is
downstream of the Blessington discharge.
Table 2 shows the results for a location, which is further downstream at a point downstream of Golden
Falls dam.

The results show that the quality of the water at both locations is at GOOD STATUS.

It is recognized that an elevated concentration of phosphorus (and not ammonia) is the recognised
critical factor in the promotion of aquatic plant growth such as algae in freshwater.
The Appendix A results demonstrates that phosphorus concentrations are not elevated in the receiving
waters.

The monitoring results do not suggest the Blessington discharge to be the cause of the algae scum.

For your information I am also attaching, herewith-

Letter of 14th June, 2012 to Mr. Thomas Deegan (copied to EPA)


Letter of 23rd May, 2012 to Mr. Brendan Kissane, OEE.
Letter of 23rd May, 2012 to Mr. Thomas Deegan.

Should you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Larry Wolahan, Senior
Executive Engineer, Water Services.
Yours sincerely,

Bryan Doyle
Director of Services,

cc
Mr. Thomas Deegan,
Broadleas,
Ballymore Eustace,
Co. Kildare

APPENDIX A
Sampled Date Ammonia (mg/1- N) BOD (mg/1) Phosphorus (React) (mg/l-P) Total Phosphorus (mg/1
P) Chlorophyll a (mg/m3) pH Surface 02 %Sat.

25/01/2012 0.07 0.02 0.5 7.6 98.8


22/02/2012 0.1 0.02 1.9 7.7 100.1
21/03/2012 0.17 1 0.015 0.02 5.6 8 102.3
11/04/2012 0.13 1 0.015 0.01 2.3 8.2 100.2
23/05/2012 0.015 1 0.015 0.01 3.6 7.9 103.9
27/06/2012 0.03 1 0.015 0.02 1.6 7.6 95.4
18/07/2012 0.015 1 0.015 0.02 0.5 7.7 85.3
28/08/2012 0.015 1 0.015 0.02 0.8 7.8 86
19/09/2012 0.015 1 0.015 0.01 0.9 7.7 98.4
24/10/2012 0.015 0.5 0.015 0.02 0.9 7.8 90.2
21/11/2012 0.015 0.5 0.015 0.02 0.7 7.8 93.3
12/12/2012 0.03 0.5 0.015 0.02 0.8 7.6 95.9
30/01/2013 0.015 0.5 0.015 0.02 0.8 8.0 102.9
20/02/2013 0.04 0.5 0.015 0.01 0.8 7.8 96.4
20/03/2013 0.23 0.5 0.015 0.02 1.7 7.8 96.9

Average 0.060 0.769 0.015 0.018 1.6 7.8 96.4


95% ie 0.188 1.000 0.015 0.020 4.4 8.1 103.2
Table I: Goldenfalls Lake (mid-lake sample 120210) at 293550 Easting, 208500
Northing
Sampled Date Ammonia (mg/1- N) BOD (mg/1) Phosphorus (React) (mg/1 P) Total Phosphorus
(mg/1 P) Chlorophyll a (mg/m3) pH Surface 02 % Sat.
25/01/2012 0.07 0.02 0.3 7.7 99.1
22/02/2012 0.08 0.02 0.5 7.7 100.9
2V03/2012 0.1 l 0.015 0.01 4.3 7.9 100.2
11/04/2012 0.1 1 0.015 0.01 2.5 7.9 98.7
23/05/2012 0.05 l 0.015 0.01 0.7 8 99.9
27/06/2012 0.03 l 0.015 0.04 0.3 7.5 91.2
18/07/2012 0.015 l 0.015 0.02 0.1 7.7 88.4
28/08/2013 0.03 l 0.015 0.02 0.8 7.7 94.4
24/10/2012 0.015 0.5 0.015 0.02 0.9 7.7 89.4
21/11/2012 0.015 0.5 0.015 0.01 0.7 7.8 97.5
12/12/2012 0.04 0.5 0.015 0.02 0.1 7.6 95.4
30/01/2013 0.015 0.5 0.015 0.02 0.3 8.0 103.5
20/02/2013 0.015 0.5 0.015 0.02 0.9 7.8 97.3
20/03/2013 0.28 0.5 0.015 0.02 1.9 7.8 98.4

Average 0.058 0.769 0.015 0.018 0.7 7.7 95.9


95% ile 0.154 1.000 0.015 0.029 3.2 7.9 101.7
Table 2: Downstream (Goldenfalls Dam sample 120220) at 292920 Easting,
208990 Northing

(more)

Tidy Towns Competition 2013

Adjudication Report

Centre: Ballymore Eustace Ref: 357

County: Kildare Mark: 290

Category: B Date(s): 03/07/2013

Maximum Mark Mark


Mark Awarded Awarded
2012 2013

Overall Development Approach 50 38 39


The Built Environment 50 37 38
Landscaping 50 39 40
Wildlife and Natural Amenities 50 36 37
Litter Control 50 35 36
Sustainable Waste And Resource Mgt. 20 10 11
Tidiness 30 17 17
Residential Areas 40 32 32
Roads, Streets and Back Areas 50 32 32
General Impression 10 8 8
TOTAL MARK 400 284 290

Overall Development Approach:


Ballymore Eustace is welcomed to the TidyTowns Competition for 2013. Thank you for your entry,
map and copy of your new three year plan and supporting documentation which was very helpful to the
adjudicator.Your group of six people as per photograph (looking very happy together with a core of
volunteers) are working well with Kildare County Council, Fas and other relevant agencies that supply
you with support and assistance.
You communicate well with the community through newspapers and media. Try using social media,
texting and email as it will save you time. The local businesses and community play a necessary part
in the committees work and their support and sponsorship is a vital ingredient to your success. Thank
you for your positive
feedback on the competition and the importance of the TidyTowns competition to the
village. Increasing membership to the committee can be a difficult task with many groups, but once
continuous support from volunteers and the community is on-going the group will succeed. Wishing
you well with your calendar of events
and in particular the forthcoming gathering, a reunion of old school pupils is wished success.

The Built Environment:


The Built Environment of the village is made up of a mix of old and new buildings all blending well to
make an attractive streetscape. Your work on unoccupied buildings has made the streetscape neat and
tidy and much more presentable. Market square is an important part of the town structure featuring a
nice water feature
and is well landscaped. St. Johns Church of Ireland and graveyard looked well. The Thatch Restaurant
with nice window boxes looked bright and welcoming. Other pleasant buildings included the Village
Store, Health Centre and the Credit Union. The Church and Montessori School beside were well
presented. The Parish Centre another important facility for the community together with the School,
all was well landscaped, neat and tidy. The village pump which is an important feature of most towns
and villages also adds splendour to the streetscape.

Landscaping:
The Landscaping throughout the village at Market Square with the water feature and landscaping of the
Boat at the Liffey Bridge looked superb. The Kilcullen Naas Road has a nice green area with pleasant
bedding on the corner; wild flowers in this area were also admired. Barrack Street is a particularly nice
street with planting and trees. The many window boxes and hanging baskets, the permanent and
summer bedding plants which are part of the village landscape were noted and admired. Looking at the
photographs submitted with your entry the village looks very colourful during Autumn/Winter. This
type of planting is encouraged by the TidyTowns together with the planting of trees and hedging. Well
done to the winner of the best small garden in your competition which is situated at St. Brigids Park.

Wildlife and Natural Amenities:


The walk along the river is a lovely amenity for the community. Entering the walk from Assumpta
Terrace the adjudicator had a pleasurable walk along the river enjoying the nature of the river and the
surrounds. The proposed new wildlife interpretive signage for the river walk would add greatly to this
lovely amenity. The
wildflowers were also noted as was the wildlife on the river. This is also an excellent facility for Scoil
Mhuire and do include the schools in any future heritage or nature trails been developed.

Litter Control:
Litter in an on-going problem and hard to combat. Creating awareness in the community and working
with the schools is the right approach. Conducting clean-ups in spring which include the community
and school are important and also regular litter picks during the summer gets everyone involved. Some
groups have an Adopt a road with volunteers responsible for that road and it is working well. The
clean-up after your dog signs were also noted. On day of adjudication very little litter was noticed,
with just a small amount in the square. Well done on your work in this category.

Sustainable Waste And Resource Management:


Well done to the school on their achievements in the Green Schools Initiative. The community are
working closely with the school in reducing waste and this can help create awareness on the whole
issue of waste. The results of the survey should indicate areas where waste could be reduced. The
TidyTowns handbook offers useful information in this area. Food is one of the areas where waste
could be reduced. Resource management in the areas of water, energy and transport can bring savings
to the community. Continue the work you are doing in this category concentrating on the top of the
pyramid and look at ways of reducing.

Tidiness:
Some area of untidiness was noticed, nothing too major. Weed growth at kerbs and car park gives an
untidy look. In the square there was a sliding door which needs painting. Across from Barrack Street
railing or barrier needs painting, also 50km sign needs attention. The bottle banks were reasonably
tidy. The work at Ball Alley entrance and Old Mill piers was noted. Well done also on work at
Assumpta Terrace, paling and hedging looks neat and tidy. Road surfaces on the Baltinglass Road and
the Church Road were uneven.

Residential Areas:
The many areas of housing visited were admired. Liffey Heights /Liffey Court were all well
maintained as was Assumpta Terrace which was well presented. There were some lovely houses with
nice window boxes and hanging baskets such as Hillcrest. Barrack Street had lovely well maintained
houses with nice landscaping.
Rose Cottage and the house with the blue door looked well. There was a lovely mix of single storey
and two storey houses all adding their own uniqueness to the streetscape of the village. Well done to
all the residents for their work in this category, it shows they have pride in the village.

Roads, Streets and Back Areas:


As stated under tidiness there are some uneven road surfaces. The resurfacing of Main Street was
noted as was the new footpath and pedestrian lights near the school. Approach roads were well
presented with neat grass verges. Kilcullen/Naas Road had some nice bedding and
wildflowers. Nameplate signs for the village need to be put in place on all roads into the village.

General Impression:
Ballymore Eustace was a pleasure to visit and has the potential to progress further in the
competition. Thank you for participating and you are wished continued success.

Tidy Towns Competition 2012

Adjudication Report

Centre: Ballymore Eustace Ref: 357

County: Kildare Mark 284

Category: B Date(s) 21/06/2012

Maximum Mark Mark


Mark Awarded Awarded
2011 2012
Overall Development Approach 50 38 38
The Built Environment 50 36 37
Landscaping 50 39 39
Wildlife and Natural Amenities 50 36 36
Litter Control 50 34 35
Tidiness 30 17 17
Waste Minimisation 20 10 10
Residential Areas 40 32 32
Roads, Streets and Back Areas 50 32 32
General Impression 10 8 8

Total Mark 400 282 284


Overall Development Approach:
Welcome Ballymore Eustace TidyTowns Group to the 2012 TidyTowns competition. Your entry is
very much appreciated.
Your entry form is concise and the additional document that accompanied your entry form made
interesting reading. Your current 3 year plan runs until the end of this year so your next 3 year plan will
be from 2013 2015. If you do any work from the end of this years competition in September next
then include it as valid for the 2013 competition. Please include a copy of your new 3 year plan with
next years entry form.
We note that your committee now has 5 members, a small enough number to tackle all of the work you
have planned. Your committee meetings are adequate for your needs and we note that you are a sub-
committee of the Ballymore Eustace Community Development Association.
The agencies and organisations from which you get support are diverse, which is good.
You use appropriate local media to communicate. Please enclose copies of newsletters, press cuttings,
etc. that mention your TidyTowns activities with your entry. These may be taken into account when
marks are being decided and will be returned to you when the competition is over.
Your engagement with the school is very good. The pupils can be a very useful resource to your Tidy
Towns group.
You are fortunate to have such generous financial supporters. Well done to all of them.
Your events are noted.

The Built Environment:


The repairs to Pinkeen Bridge were seen. Well done. Clearing the roots and improving the walk were
also noted. This adjudicator used the steps to get to the walk and thanks you for repairing the handrail.
Maintenance of street furniture, landscaping, etc. is of a high order.
Ballymore Eustace is a very pleasant village and its public buildings and other buildings of note are
well presented. The Millennium Garden would grace any village or town and is very well maintained.
The Millennium Garden also merits comment in the Tidiness and Roads, Streets and Back Areas
categories.
St. Johns C. of I. and cemetery are important attractions, particularly for the 2 High Crosses. All are
well presented, neat and tidy. The information board was read with interest. The old stone walls were
admired.
The gate was unlocked which was very trusting given the references in your entry to vandalism.
Church of the Immaculate Conception is in a key location in the village. It was well presented, neat,
tidy.
The Parish Centre looked well and had 2 raised flower beds adding summer colour. Scoil Mhuire was
flying its Green Flag and its grounds were neat, tidy and well maintained. No litter. The Garda Station
is well presented. The cottages on Barrack Street are eye catching with hanging baskets and flower
pots.

Landscaping:
The iconic landscaping feature is the rowing boat high and dry in its raised flower bed beside the
bridge. It has a good floral display as cargo. There is nice landscaping at the Naas/Kilcullen Roads
junction. Around the village there were planters with lots of flowers adding summer colour.
Landscaping on approach roads will be dealt with in the Roads, Streets and Back Areas category. Your
tree planting on the Kilcullen/Mount Cashel road was seen. You have a high maintenance workload
which is often overlooked by visitors, and possibly some locals, when they stop to admire your
landscaping.

Wildlife and Natural Amenities:


This adjudicator did the River Liffey Walk. The damage caused by such a small stream is awesome. It
is an excellent amenity and hopefully it will be restored as soon as possible. Your wildlife flower
planting along the walk is commended. The guided nature trail and heritage trail walks with the Scoil
Mhuire pupils is also commended.

Litter Control:
The new Clean up after your dog and No dumping signs were seen. Litter outside shop on Chapel
Street.
As mentioned earlier, please enclose with your entry form articles in the newsletter dealing with litter
control.
Your clean up sessions and litter patrols are having the desired effect. There was very little litter in
evidence in Ballymore Eustace on adjudication day. In your next TidyTowns entry please let us know
the frequency of your litter controls. Well done to all involved.

Tidiness:
This adjudicator concurs with the comments made by last years adjudicator that the direction signs on
the pole at the Millennium Garden be relocated. They are obscured by trees and each other and are an
eyesore, detracting from the Millennium Garden, one of the key features in the village.
The Recycling Centre was clean and tidy. Handball Alley was also clean and tidy. No litter. The blue
hoarding on Main Street is unfortunate. Unfinished developments are a blight on many towns and
villages but are a national problem and not the responsibility of TidyTowns groups. The presence of
these unfinished developments do not have an adverse impact on your marks.
Barrack Street bollards need to be cleaned.
Direction signs at the Poulaphouca approach road junction need to be cleaned.

Waste Minimisation:
Please consult the TidyTowns handbook for advice and tips on this category. The first action point
given on the entry form for this category is Promotion of best practice. TidyTown groups are
expected to be proactive in communicating with their community, both villagers and retailers, the
principles of waste minimisation. The waste pyramid used in the entry form to illustrate the relative
importance of each option shows that recycling is a less favoured option than minimisation.
Minimisation is about reducing the amount of material, including food, that enters Ballymore Eustace
and ends up as waste. It also includes reducing consumption of energy, water, etc. Use the parish
newsletter and any other communications method available to you. Ask the TidyTowns Unit for the
booklet Race against Waste. A useful web site is www.stopfoodwaste.ie.
You published a recycling information sheet please enclose a copy with next years entry form as it
will be of interest to the adjudicator.
The Household Waste Survey carried out in conjunction with Kildare County Council and Scoil
Mhuire pupils was an excellent initiative. Please say in next years entry form what action, if any, is
being taken as a result of the surveys findings.

Residential Areas:
Many of the projects you list in this category are more appropriate to other categories and have already
been dealt with e.g. River Liffey Walk, damage to Pinkeen Bridge, vandalised hand rail, etc.
Residential areas seen by the adjudicator include:
Hillcrest very well presented residential cul-de-sac. Grassed areas well maintained. Well done to all.
Residences on Chapel Street are well presented. Cottages on Barrack Street are eye catching.
Assumpta Terrace/St Bridgets Park these are hidden gems of Ballymore Eustace. Good landscaping.
Grassed areas well maintained. Some of the houses have attractive floral displays despite all of the rain
this summer. Well done to all concerned.
Liffey Heights Court: grassed area well maintained. Some planters. Neat, tidy, no litter.

Roads, Streets and Back Areas:


Some of the road surfaces in Ballymore Eustace are poor including those near the Millennium Garden,
a key feature in the village.
Footpath improvements noted.
Approach road from Poulaphouca: Welcome to stone and black and white village name sign on a
nicely landscaped area at the junction, they combine to create a very good first impression of the
village. It is a pity about the disused commercial premises nearby which is an eyesore.
Bishophill Road approach: residences on this road are very well presented. The adjudicator noticed an
old red waterpump on the road side. Very good first impression. Road surface poor.
Approach on Coughlanstown Road: No Ballymore Eustace village sign. Well kept verges.
Naas Road approach: Welcome to sign on grass verge. Young trees. Not a great first impression.
L6053: no speed limit sign to define TidyTowns boundary. KTK Ltd entrance enhances the overall first
impression.
Kilcullen Road approach: No village name sign.
Baltinglass Road approach: No village name sign. Used speed limit sign to mark TidyTowns boundary.
Average first impression.
General Impression:
The issues raised in your entry form have been noted and many have been commented on elsewhere in
this report.
Ballymore Eustace TidyTowns Group has made further progress in the TidyTowns Competition. We
look forward to receiving your new three year plan and your entry into the 2013 TidyTowns
Competition.
Thank you Ballymore Eustace TidyTowns Group.

Tidy Towns Competition 2008


Adjudication Report

Centre: Ballymore Eustace Ref: 357


County: Kildare Mark: 262
Category: B Date(s): 07/07/2008

Max.Mark Mark 2008


Overall Development Approach 50 33
The Built Environment 50 35
Landscaping 50 38
Wildlife and Natural Amenities 50 34
Litter Control 50 32
Waste Minimisation 20 5
Tidiness 30 16
Residential Areas 40 30
Roads, Streets and Back Areas 50 31
General Impression 10 8
Total Mark 400 262

Overall Development Approach:


NOTE : You were in Category C last year. You have applied for Category B this year. This is correct,
as your population is within the B Category threshold as per Census 2006.

Go raibh maith agaibh go leir! Thank you to Ballymore Eustace TidyTowns and to the community you
represent for having given selflessly of your time in working towards entering Ballymore Eustace in
this 50th anniversary year of the TidyTowns Competition!
Ballymore Eustace is a small village with a good number of people involved on your committee. Your
submission has been put together in a very professional format. It is most interesting, and informative,
clear and extensive. You have drawn on the resources of many bodies, agencies and local businesses,
including your local authority. You list these for us in your submission. Obviously they hold your
group in high regard. You have an extensive media coverage organised. Thank you for letting us have
copies of relevant media coverage. We hope that you communicate with all churches attended by any
of your residents. Well done on your website. Thank you for submitting your five year plan. It is a pity
that you did not detail the consultation process involved in drawing up your Plan. We assume that you
held public meetings in this regard, but this is not clear from your submission, nor is it clear from the
plan itself. We assume that you have launched your plan. We hope that it was well received. You
appear to have listed specific projects for 2008 and 2009 only, with the rest included as "ongoing",
presumably 2008-2013. Your school is a great resource for you. Thank you for enclosing the happy
photograph of all your great helpers at Scoil Mhuire! We note your concern with the paperwork. We
think that you have done "overtime in this area! As you are starting out with a new plan, and as you
are therefore engaging in a lot of paperwork now, the load should lessen. We hasten to say that it is
appreciated and has helped us as adjudicators get to know the village well. The fact that it has all been
submitted in A4 format has made it easier to use, and the fact that it is so well presented is also to your
credit. So you can tell your members that it has been worth the effort! Your festivals are diverse, and
you appear to have the edge on other places in Kildare when it comes to attracting in visitors with the
festivals you can access. Thank you for submitting a clear map in your plan. However individual
projects might be highlighted on a larger scaled map.

(more)

Angler of the Year 2015

Anvil Bar Shield 27/09/2015 Winner Fergus Nolan 1lb 4.9ozs (593g)

Runner-up Mick Mooney 1lb 4.2oz (572g)

Jim Bolger Trophy 23/08/2015 Winner Des Tyrrell 1lb 1.8ozs (505g)

Runner-up Gay Doody 9.3ozs (265g)

Eddie Gordon Shield 24/07/2015 Winner Mel McKenna 10.8ozs (305g)

Runner-up Gay Doody 9 ozs (255g)

No junior weighed-in

The Local Trophy 03/07/2015 Winner Gay Doody 13.9ozs (394g)

Runner-up Mick Mooney 12.2 ozs (345g)

Junior Winner Lee McMullen 6.6 ozs (186g)

Sonny Cowley Shield 19/06/2015 Winner Mick McCafferty 1lb 2ozs (526g)

Runner up Mick Mooney 12.3 ozs (349g)

Junior Winner Lee McMullen 6.5 ozs (185g)

Mick Murphy Shield 05/06/15 Winner Tony Sweeney 13.9 ozs (393g)

Runner-up Robbie Winder 12.3 0zs (350g)

No junior weighed-in

Committee Cup 22/05/15 Winner Mick Francis 15.5 ozs (440g)

Runner-up Des Tyrrell 14.1ozs (399g)

Junior Winner Lee McMullen 9.1 ozs (257g)

Tony McKnight Trophy 10/05/15 Winner Des Tyrrell 2lb 1.1ozs (938g)

Runner-up: Fergus Nolan 1lb 12.4 ozs; (804g)

Punchestown Festival 26/04/15 Winner: Gay Doody9.1 ozs; (258g)

Runner up: Eamonn Winder 8.8 ozs; (249g)


No Junior weighed in

J & K Murray Cup 12/04/15 Winner: Fergus Nolan 2lb; (915g)

Runner up: Mick McCafferty 13.2 ozs; (374g)

Junior Winner Lee McMullen 8.1 ozs (236g)

Jimmy Evans Cup 22/03/2015 Winner: Joe Winder 13.5 ozs; (382g)

Runner up: Willie Ryan 6.7ozs; (191g)

Angler of the Year 2014

Anvil Bar Shield 28/09/2014 Winner Mick Francis 1lb 5ozs (613g)

Runner-up Fergus Nolan 1lb 1 oz (507g)

Jim Bolger Trophy 24/08/2014 Winner Mick Francis 2lb 2.4ozs (963g)

Runner-up Mick McCafferty 1lb 11ozs (756g)

Eddie Gordon Trophy 25/07/2014 Winner Gay Doody 1lb 2 ozs (537g)

Runner-up Mel McKenna 8.9ozs (257g)

No junior weighed-in

The Local Trophy 04/07/2014 Winner Gay Doody 12.1ozs (343g)

Runner-up Mel McKenna 12.0 ozs (341g)

Junior Winner Ben Noone 15.4 ozs (437g)

Sonny Cowley Shield 20/06/2014 Winner Mick Mooney 2lb 6 ozs (1082g)

Runner up Joe Winder 1lb 2 ozs (529g)

Junior Winner Lee McMullen 13.8 ozs (390g)

Mick Murphy Shield 06/06/14 Winner Mel McKenna 13 ozs (370g)

Runner-up Mick Francis 9.5 0zs (268g)

Committee Cup 23/05/14 Winner Tom Nugent 2lb 5 ozs (1052g)

Runner-up Mick Francis 14.8ozs (420g)

Junior Winner Lee McMullen 10 ozs (286g)


Runner-up Aaron Roony 8.2 ozs (233g)

Tony McKnight Trophy 11/05/14 Winner Mick Mooney 9.7 ozs; (276g)

Runner-up: Gay Doody 8.5 ozs; (242g)

Punchestown Festival 20/04/14 Winner: Thomas Hanzel 12.1 ozs; (343g)

Runner up: Gay Doody 11.8 ozs; (335g)

Junior Winner Aaron Rooney 7.4 ozs (209)

Runner-up Lee McMullen 5.2 ozs (146g)

J & K Murray Cup 06/04/14 Winner: Eamonn Winder 1lb 2.4 ozs; (523g)

Runner up: Gay Doody 11.9 ozs; (337g)

Junior Winner Aaron Rooney 5.5 ozs (157g)

Runner-up Lee McMullen 4.8 ozs (135g)

Jimmy Evans Cup 23/03/2014 Winner: Stan Huilx ozs; (469g)

Runner up: Joe Winder ozs; (410g)

Junior Winner Lee McMullen 233g

Runner-up Aaron Rooney 207g

Angler of the Year 2013: Gay Doody

Heaviest Trout of the Year 2013: Fergus Nolan


Pike Competition 01/12/13 Winner:

Runner-up:

Anvil Bar Perpetual Shield 29/09/13 Winner Fergus Nolan 2lb 5.3 ozs(1058kg)

Runner-up Mick Mooney 1lb 13.2 ozs (827g)

Jim Bolger Trophy 2/08/2013 Winner Mick Mooney 2lb 3.8ozs (1014kg)

Runner-up Mel McKenna 1lb 6.7ozs (645g)

Junior Winner Lee McMullen 6.5ozs (184g)

Eddie Gordon Trophy 26/07/2013 Winner Mick McCaffrey 15.4ozs (438g)

Runner-up James Noone 9.9ozs (281g)


The Local Trophy 05/07/2013 Winner Gay Doody 1lb 2.6ozs (526g)

Runner-up Brian McDonagh 7.7ozs (219g)

Junior Winner Aaron Rooney 10.0 ozs (284g)

Junior R-up Lee McMullen 8.7ozs (248g)

Sonny Cowley Shield 21/06/2013 Winner Gay Doody 1lb 5.9 ozs (621g)

Runner up Mel McKenna 14.4 ozs (407)

Junior Winner Aaron Rooney 6.4 ozs (182g)

Mick Murphy Shield 8706/13 Winner Mel McKenna 8.4 ozs (237g)

Runner-up Mick Francis 8.1ozs (230g)

Committee Cup 24/5/13 Winner Gay Doody 1lb 3.2 ozs (543g)

Runner-up Des Tyrrell 12.8ozs (363g)

Tony McKnight Trophy 12/05/13Winner Mick Francis 1lb 12.5ozs; (808g)

Runner-up: Martin Keogh 1lb 1.5 ozs; (495g)

Punchestown Festival 21/04/13 Winner: Tomasc Hanzel 1lb 1.4 ozs; (492g)

Runner up: Gay Doody 14.6 ozs; (414g)

J & K Murray Cup 7/04/13 Winner: Gay Doody 1lb 1.5 ozs; (497g)

Runner up: Tomasc Hanzel 9.1 ozs; (259g)

Jimmy Evans Cup 24/03/2013 Winner: Martin Keogh 14.9 ozs; (422g)

Runner up: Gay Doody 10.4ozs; (295g)

Angler of the Year 2012: Gay Doody

Heaviest Trout of the Year 2012: Tom Nugent


Details:
Wt: 1.862kg (4lb 1.7ozs) Length: 54cm (21ins) Date of capture: 8/6/12
Landed by Tom Nugent at Johnny Murphys on the River Liffey using a brown sedge wet fly. (Record
weight recorded in a club angling competition)

Result of Scale analysis carried out by Dr. William Roche, Senior Research Officer, Inland Fisheries
Ireland.

Examined all scales submitted and all were replacements. This means that no intact scale available for
analysis. Two had some detail (age/growth pattern) for past five years. It is not uncommon for older
fish to have many replacement scales present. The inner portion of the scale was occluded due to the
fact of it being a replacement and does not show any of the early life history of the fish. However I
have attempted to age the fish based on previous information for the Liffey.
Using an old formula for condition coefficient = 10^6 (W lbs)/427 (L)^3 where W is the weight in
pounds, L is the length in inches and assuming a condition coefficient of 1 (i.e. good condition), I
estimated that the fish was approx. 54cm in length. Length is important information when looking at
growth. There was significant scale erosion evident on the scales (indicative of a spawning mark)
indicating that it had spawned two years previously. Some less pronounced spawning marks visible
also.
From the above and the scales I am guesstimating that the fish was 7or 8 + years old based on previous
scale readings from other trout from the Liffey and other information. This would put it into the fast or
very fast category for growth of brown trout in Irish rivers based on a classification system devised by
Kennedy and Fitzmaurice (1971).

Pike Competition 02/12/12 Winner: Mick Francis 11 lbs (5.0kg)

Runner-up Paul McGlynn 8 lbs (3.6kg)

Anvil Bar Perpetual Shield 30/09/12 Winner Mick Francis 2lb 7.6 ozs (1.123kg)

Runner-up Fergus Byrne 2lb 6.1 ozs (1.081kg)

Guinness All Methods 26/08/2012 Winner Fergus Nolan 2lb 7.3ozs (1.115kg)

Runner-up Fergus Byrne 2lb 7.1ozs (1.11kg)

Eddie Gordon Trophy 27/07/2012 Winner Fergus Nolan 12.5ozs (353g)

Runner-up Brian McDonagh 12.3ozs (348g)


The Local Trophy 06/07/2012 Winner Gay Doody 1lb 3.7 ozs (559g)

Runner-up Mel McKenna 14.2ozs (404g)

Sonny Cowley Shield 22/06/2012 Winner Gay Doody 1lb 6.9 ozs (649g)

Runner up Fergus Byrne 1lb 4.5 ozs (580)

Mick Murphy Shield 8/06/12 Winner Tom Nugent 4lb 1.7 ozs (1.862kg)

(Record heaviest trout weighed-in at a competition)

Runner-up Des Tyrrell 1lb 3ozs (540g)

Committee Cup 25/5/12 Winner Viktor Miske 1lb 6.3 ozs (632g)

Runner-up Fintan Smith 1lb 4.3ozs (592g)

Tony McKnight Trophy 6/05/12 Winner Martin Reynolds 1lb 11.1ozs; (769g)

Runner-up: Mick Francis 1lb 6.1 ozs; (626g)

Punchestown Festival 22/04/12 Winner: Gay Doody 8.0 ozs; (228g)

Runner up: Mick Mooney 6.1 ozs; (173g)

J & K Murray Cup 8/04/12 Winner: Mick Mooney 11.1 ozs; (316g)

Runner up: Trevor Winder 9.4 ozs; (267g)

Jimmy Evans Cup 25/03/2012 Winner: Gay Doody 5.9 ozs; (166g)

Runner up: Mick Mooney 3.8ozs; (108g)

Angler of the Year 2011: Trevor Winder

Heaviest Trout of the Year 2011: Fergus Nolan

Pike Competition 04/12/11 Winner: Barry Brosnan (Draw)

Runner-up Pat Dunworth (Draw)

Anvil Bar Perpetual Shield 25/09/11 Winner Fergus Byrne 1lb 13.6 0zs (838g)

Runner-up Willie Ryan 1lb 8.9 ozs (706g)

Guinness All Methods 28/08/2011 Winner Fergus Nolan 1lb 15.3ozs (888g)

Runner-up Trevor Winder 1lb 12.9ozs (820g)

Eddie Gordon Trophy 22/07/2011 Winner Mick Mooney 13.8ozs (390g)


Runner-up Joe Winder 13.6ozs (385g)

The Local Trophy 08/07/2011 Winner Trevor Winder 12.6 ozs (357g)

Runner-up Tony Daly 7.8 ozs (220g)

Sonny Cowley Shield 24/06/2011 Winner Mel Mc Kenna 1lb 6.9 ozs (650g)

Runner up Michael McCaffrey 1lb 0.2 ozs (460g)

Mick Murphy Shield 10/06/11 Winner Michael McCaffrey 1lb 0.8 ozs (475g)

Runner-up Mick Francis 12.3 ozs (348g)

Junior Section Winner Glen Rooney 11.1 ozs (314g)

Committee Cup 27/5/11 Winner Martin Nugent 13.8ozs; (392g)

Runner-up Fintan Smith 11.3; (319g)

Junior Section Winner by Glen Rooney 6.9 ozs (195g)

Tony McKnight Trophy 8/05/11 Winner Trevor Winder 1lb 11.5ozs; (779g)

Runner-up: Tom Nugent 1lb 10ozs;(736g) 3rd. Fergus Byrne 1lb 7.1oz (654g)

Punchestown Festival 1/05/11 Winner: Gay Doody 10.4 ozs; (296g)

Runner up: Liam Cox; 9.4 ozs; (266g)

J & K Murray Cup 10/04/11 Winner: Pat Dunworth 8.4 ozs; (238g)

Runner up: Tomasz 5.7 ozs; (162g)

Jimmy Evans Cup 20/03/2011 Winner: Liam Cox 1lb 1.8 ozs; (505g)

Runner up: Fergus Nolan 13.2ozs; (375g)

Angler of the Year 2010: Trevor Winder

Heaviest Trout of the Year 2010: Martin Keogh

Pike Competition 05/12/10 Winner: Pat Dunworth (Draw)

Runner-up Martin Keogh (Draw)

Anvil Bar Perpetual Shield 26/09/10 Winner Troy Francis 1lb 6.5 ozs (637g)

Runner-up Tommy Winters 1lb 4.2 ozs (573g)

Guinness All Methods 29/08/2010 Winner Martin Keogh 2lb 1.3ozs (943g)

Runner-up Martin Reynolds 1lb 13ozs (821g)


Eddie Gordon Trophy 06/08/2010 Winner Trevor Winder 1lb 3.2ozs (544g)

Runner-up Tony Daly 12.3ozs (348g)

The Local Trophy 9/07/2010 Winner Fintan Smith 12.3 ozs; (348g)

Runner-up Joe Winder 10.7 ozs; (303g)

Sonny Cowley Shield 25/06/2010 Winner Trevor Winder 1lb5.6ozs; (613g)

Runner up Ollie Keogh 12.9 ozs; (352g)

Mick Murphy Shield 11/6/10 Winner Des Tyrrell 1lb 1.1 ozs (479g)

Runner-up Trevor Winder 13.3ozs (379g)

Committee Cup 21/5/10 Winner Ollie Keogh 13.8ozs; (390g)

Runner-up Joe Winder 13.7; (388g)

Tony McKnight Trophy 9/5/10 Winner Michael Mc Caffrey 1lb 3.6ozs; (556g)

Runner-up Trevor Winder 12.2ozs;(347g)

Punchestown Festival 18/04/10 Winner: Gay Doody 13.8 ozs; (392g)

Runner up Martin Keogh; 9.5 ozs; (270g)

J & K Murray Cup 11/04/10 Winner: Martin Keogh 1lb 1.7 ozs; (503g)

Runner up Joe Winder 9.3 ozs; (265g)

Jimmy Evans Cup 21/03/10 Winner: Tom Nugent 10.8 ozs; (306g)

Runner up Fergus Byrne 10.4ozs; (295g)

Angler of the Year 2009: Trevor Winder

Heaviest Trout of the Year 2009: Michael Mooney

Junior Heaviest Trout of the Year 2009: Barry Winder

Pike Competition 06/12/09 Winner: Mick Francis 14lb

Runner-up Sean Goulding 11.5lb

Anvil Bar Perpetual Shield 27/09/09 Winner Martin Keogh 2lb 7.6 ozs (1124g)

Runner-up Mick Francis 1lb 10.3 ozs (745g)

Guinness Trophy(All Methods) 30/08/09 Winner Pat Dunworth 1lb 12.6 ozs 812g

Runner-up Martin Keogh 1lb 12.4 ozs (806g)


Eddie Gordon Trophy 07/08/2009 Winner Mick Mooney 3lb 2.2 ozs (1420g)

Runner-up Trevor Winder 2lb 2.8 ozs (987g)

The Local Trophy 10/07/2009 Winner Trevor Winder 15.6ozs; (443g)

Runner-up Richie Stenson 12.8 ozs; (362g)

Sonny Cowley Shield 19/06/2009 Winner Pat Dunworth 15.6ozs; (442g)

Runner up Niall Brosnan 12.2 ozs; (347g)

Mick Murphy Shield 05/06/2009 Winner Fergus Byrne 12.3 ozs; (350g)

Runner up Brian Rigney 11.7 ozs (332g)

Junior Winner Simon Ellis 5.5 ozs (155g)

Committee Cup 22/5/09 Winner Trevor Winder 1lb 6ozs; (623g)

Runner-up Billy OBrien 1lb 4.9ozs; (592g)

Junior Winner Barry Winder 9 ozs; (256g)

Tony McKnight Trophy 10/5/09 Winner Trevor Winder 1lb 7.9ozs; (677g)

Runner-up Gay Doody 8.2ozs;(233g)


Punchestown Festival 26/04/09 Winner: Gay Doody 13ozs; (371g)

Runner up Billy OBrien; 11.6 ozs; (328g)

J & K Murray Cup 05/04/09 Winner: Billy OBrien 1lb 2.8 ozs; (532g)

Runner up Joe Winder 11.7 ozs; (331g)

Jimmy Evans Cup 15/03/09 Winner: Billy OBrien 9.8 ozs; (279g)

Runner up Trevor Winder 9.7ozs; (275g)

Angler of the Year 2008: Martin Keogh

Heaviest Trout of the Year 2008: Michael Mooney

Junior Angler of the Year 2008: Troy Francis

Junior Heaviest Trout of the Year: Patrick Langan

Pike Competition 07/12/08 Winner: Fran Byrne19lb

Runner-up Martin Reynolds 10lb

Anvil Bar Shield 28/9/08 Winner: Michael Mooney 3lbs 11.2 ozs; (1680g)

Runner-up Michael Francis 1lb 6.8ozs; (646g)


Guinness Trophy 31/8/08 Winner: Michael McCaffrey 2lbs 3.9 ozs; (1018g)

Runner-up Tom Nugent 1lb 6.3ozs; (631g)

Eddie Gordon Trophy 8/8/08 Winner Joe Winder 13.4 ozs; (380g)

Runner-up Martin Keogh 13.1ozs; (371g)

Junior Winner Christy Walsh 7.2 ozs; (204g)

The Local Trophy 11/7/08 Winner PeterMcGlynn 1lb 5.1ozs; (598g)

Runner-up Liam Stenson 1lb 3.2 ozs; (544g)

Junior Winner Troy Francis 5.8 ozs;(165g)

Sonny Cowley Shield 20/06/08 Winner Ollie Keogh 12.9 ozs; (366g)

Runner-up Sean Goulding 12.0 ozs; (339g)

Junior Winner Troy Francis 11ozs; (312g)

Mick Murphy Shield 6/6/08 Winner Des Tyrrell 1lb 8 ozs; (681g)

Runner-up Martin Keogh 1lb 1.5 ozs; (497g)

Junior Winner Troy Francis 8.2 ozs;(233g) Runner-up Eoin Lyons 7.7 ozs; (216g)

Committee Cup 23/5/08 Winner Gary Bolger 15.1 ozs; (427g)

Runner-up Martin Keogh 12.1ozs; (344g)

Junior Winner Simon Ellis 7.3ozs; (206g) Runner-up Eoin Lyons 5.5 ozs; (155g)

Tony McKnight Trophy 11/5/08 Winner Mick Francis 2 lb 1.3 ozs; (944g)

Runner-up Tommy Winters 1lb 11.6ozs; (782g)

Junior Winner Troy Francis 1lb 1.7 ozs (503g)

Punchestown Festival 20/4/08 Winner Sean Goulding 1lb 5.9 ozs; (620g)

Runner-up Trevor Winder 1lb 1oz (457g)

Junior Winner Patrick Langan 1lb 2.7 ozs; (531g)

J & K Murray Cup 6/4/08 Winner Liam Cox 7.7 ozs (217g)

Runner-up Peter McGlynn 5.9ozs; (167g)

Jimmy Evans Cup 16/3/08 Winner Martin Keogh 1lb 6.1ozs (627g)

Runner-up Sean Goulding 1lb 1.4ozs; (493)


KILDARE COUNTY COUNCIL

PUBLIC INFORMATION EVENING

BALLYMORE EUSTACE SEWERAGE SCHEME

As work on the contracts relevant to the Ballymore Eustace Sewerage Scheme is about to commence,
Kildare County Council has arranged for a public information evening about the project to be held in
the Ballymore Eustace Resource Centre on Tuesday the 22nd of January, 2013, from 6:00 pm to 8:30
pm.

Plans and particulars of the scheme will be on display for the duration of the evening. Representatives
from the contractors and consulting engineers, along with associated members of staff will be available
to explain the works and answer any questions relevant to the project. All are cordially invited to
attend.

G. Halton
Senior Executive Officer
Water Services Section
Kildare County Council

The information night from 6pm to 9pm was a great success with many people expressing great
satisfaction at the proposed plans.

Present at the meeting included:

Representing Kildare County Council: Joe Boland, Director of Services, Liam Crawford, Tim
OConnor, Paul Batty. For Consultants Nicholas ODwyer: Terry OFlannagan, Martin OConnell. For
Contractors Ward & Burke: Pat Barrett. For Contractors Resource Engineering: Alan Dolan. A large
representation of the general public including most of the committee members of the Trout and Salmon
Anglers Association.

The Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association are pleased that as we argued at the
Bord Pleanala Oral Hearing back in 1999 (when Abbeydrive were seeking planning permission to build
a new sewage treatment plant at the site of the existing sewage treatment plant at the Strand) that any
new plant should be constructed downstream of Ballymore Eustace village. While the Inspector dealing
with the Oral Hearing agreed with our case Bord Pleanala granted permission for the proposed plant to
be built on the existing site.

However, An Bord Pleanala refused permission to Abbeydrive to build the 416 houses which had been
grated permission by Kildare County Council at the 40 Acres, Ballymore Eustace and so, Abbeydrive
Developments did not go ahead and build a new sewage treatment plant now referred to as Waste
Water Treatment Plant (WWTP)

Despite all that has been achieved in the past number of years Ballymore Eustace has suffered one
major drawback and that is the lack of a modern sewage treatment plant or waste water treatment plant
as they are now called. Perhaps in one way this was a blessing in disguise as it prevented the
wholesale destruction of a Special Village by huge speculative developments such as the 507 houses at
the 40 acres or the 73 houses at Bishopshill or a similar number at Dorans Park, Susheen. Under the
present circumstances, it might now be easier for Ballymore Eustace to develop in a controlled way.
On the down side, Ballymore Eustace has many derelict sites that need to be developed such as the old
Donaghys Garage site, Oliver Plunkett Road site, Site opposite the Band Hall, Site between Barrack
Street and Oliver Plunkett Road, etc. All towns and villages need to develop and grow in a controlled
way; otherwise, they just stagnate and die. Ballymore Eustace is one of only a few places in Leinster
to have suffered a decline in population in the April 2006 Census (population 725) but to many peoples
surprise the population of the village increased by 147 to 872 people in the April 2011 Census but the
population of the parish decreased from 1524 in 2006 to 1475 in 2011.

A short history of attempts to upgrade the sewage treatment plant in Ballymore Eustace might help
highlight the difficulty in attempting to draw up a development plan for Ballymore Eustace.
Since the mid 1980s Kildare County Council has promised a new sewage treatment plant for
Ballymore Eustace. At first, the village was to be linked to the Upper Liffey Valley Regional Sewage
Treatment Plant at Osberstown, Naas, Co. Kildare. Policy later changed and Kildare County Council
decided that Ballymore Eustace would get its own Sewage Plant.

Things dragged on until 1998 when Abbeydrive Development sought planning permission from
Kildare County Council for 507 houses at the 40 acres Broadleas, Ballymore Eustace. Abbeydrive
also sought permission to build a 2000 P.E. Sewage Treatment Plant at Kildare County Councils
existing site at the Strand, Ballymore Eustace. However, An Bord Pleanala refused planning
permission for the 416 house development which Kildare County Council had granted but did grant
planning permission for the proposed new sewage treatment plant. As expected without permission to
construct the houses the Developer did not construct a new Sewage Treatment Plant. These
Developments were the subject of a Bord Pleanala Oral Hearing.

On the 6th October 2005, Kildare County Council announced in the local press that it intended to
construct a new Waste Water Treatment Plant at Susheen, Ballymore Eustace and convert the existing
plant at the Strand to a pumping station. However, an objection by the Health Service Executive dated
29th March 2006, on the basis that the proposed site was too close to an existing residence, put an end
to this plan.

In December 2007, the Council advertised under Part 8 of the Planning & Development Regulations
2001 their intention to construct a new sewage treatment plant, this time at a site downstream of the
village at the Kimmeens, Ballymore Eustace with the existing plant being converted to a pumping
station. It appeared to be all systems go, as there was no objection to the proposed plant. It was
expected that the plant would be operational in 2009. Site investigation surveys, archaeological
surveys, landscape surveys were all carried out during 2008. However, the village was devastated by a
letter dated the 26th February 2009 from The Director of Services, Kildare County Council stating that
due to the present financial crises the project was being reviewed by the Department of the
Environment and indeed the Minister for the Environment Mr. John Gormley withdrew proposed
funding under the Serviced Land Initiative. The Council made a positive submission to the Department
of the Environment citing, in particular, the extent to which planning applications are currently on
hold as well as the desirability of addressing water quality issues. Representation was also made to the
Minister for the Environment by the Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association
requesting that the new plant be approved in order to prevent continued pollution of the Liffey and to
allow the village to develop rather than stagnate and die. Mr. Jack Wall T.D., on behalf of the Angling
Association, put forward no less than five different Parliamentary Questions to the Minister concerning
the proposed Ballymore Eustace Sewage Treatment Plant. The whole village was delighted when on
the 19th April 2010 the Minister for the Environment Mr. John Gormley published the Water Services
Investment Programme 2010-2012. A total of 3,545,000 was allocated to the Ballymore Eustace
Wastewater Treatment Plant. Our delight was somewhat curtailed when we learned from the Director
of Services, Water and Environment Dept., Kildare County Council that the Council itself must come
up with 60% of the cost of the Sewage Plant. The Director of Services informed us on the 8th April
2011 that the best scenario at that moment was that the WWTP would go to tender in May 2011,
commence construction in the 1st quarter of 2012 and be operational in the 4th quarter of 2012. This
we were told depended on Kildare County Council coming up with 60% of the cost of the plant. When
the Minister for the Environment Mr. John Gormley included Ballymore Eustace WWTP in the 2010-
2012 Serviced Land Initiative this meant 40% funding by the DoEHLG and 60% funding by
Developers/KCC. In an email dated 21st April 2011 to the three South Kildare T.Ds, the Director of
Services informed them that Kildare County Council had applied to have the project approved as a
conventional project with 78% funding by the DoEHLG and 28% funding by KCC. Jack Wall T.D., on
behalf of Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers agreed to ask a Parliamentary Question of the
Minister to find out the Ministers position.
On the 21st April 2011 the Director of Services Kildare County Council met with developers interested
in building in Ballymore Eustace and found that there was little prospect of private sector funding for
the construction of the new sewage treatment plant at Ballymore Eustace bearing in mind that
substantial dezoning took place in the village in the new County Development Plan 2011 2017.
Accordingly, as part of the annual review of the Water Services Investment Programme, Kildare
County Council applied to have the project reapproved as a conventional project i.e. 78% funding from
the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and 22% Kildare County
Council.
The Director of Services Kildare County Council informed us that the new Minister for the
Environment Mr. Phil Hogan T.D. was reviewing all spending by his Department.
A letter from The Director of Services to the TSAA dated 19th July 2011 states that " the final
consents from the Department are now expected and it is, therefore, envisaged the new sewerage
treatment plant will shortly be going to tender. I will keep you appraised regarding progress."
The Department did consent to the new funding arrangement.

A reply was received to the following question submitted by Councillor Mark Wall from Water
Services Kildare County Council at the Athy Area meeting on Monday 19th September 2011.
"Councillor Wall
That the council confirm the up to date position in relation to the new sewerage plant for Ballymore
Eustace following previous meetings on this issue.
Water and Environmental Services.
Report: Matters are progressing well; all design aspects are complete, issues relating to accommodation
works, wayleaves and contract documentation are currently being finalised. It is proposed that the
project will go to tender before the end of the current year. There will be two contracts involved ie, the
waste water treatment plant and the network. A construction period of approximately one year is
envisaged.
The members will be kept informed on progress.
(Issued by G. Halton, Senior Executive Officer, Water Services)"

The Trout and Salmon Anglers on 31st January 2012 emailed the Director of Services, Water &
Environment, Kildare County Council seeking a reason for the delay in tendering and received the
following reply on the same date The delay is certainly regretted tom but it does seem that issues are
now resolved.. We met the dept of env inspector on 19 January and discussed the matterthe only
outstanding issue currently , as far as I am aware, is to forward and agree budget projections. All
design aspects and contract documents are finalised, wayleaves should be in-hand, and I see no reason
why we cant go to tender before the end of February.

A further email reply from the Director of Services dated 6th March 2012 stated treatment plant now
going to tendergot declg approval last week..
Then, on the 28th March 2012 the tender notices appeared on eTender. Two contracts, the main
WWTP at the Kimmeens and the Pumping Station plus pipework at the Strand.

The EPA on the 17th February 2011 granted a Waste Water Discharge Licence for the proposed Waste
Water Treatment Plant and one of the conditions is that it be operational by December 2012.

A Landscaping Plan for the old Sewage Plant site (new Pumping Station) which will totally transform
this section of the Riverside Walk was agreed between Kildare County Council and the Ballymore
Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association and we are desperately awaiting its implementation.

At present, planning permission has been granted by Kildare County Council, with a condition attached
that construction cannot start until the new Waste Water Treatment Plant is constructed, for a 59 bed
Nursing Home at Tinnycross, 11 houses at Donaghys old Garage site, 4 houses in Barrack Street, 3
houses at Golden Falls. The derelict house on Oliver Plunkett Road beside Paddy Murphys Pub was
refused planning permission for apartments and three shop units solely because the present sewage
treatment plant is overloaded.

A new sewage treatment plant will have numerous advantages for the village:
it will remove the existing dilapidated sewage plant away from the centre of the village and Riverside
Walk/Linear Park amenity area and replace it with a landscaped pumping station.
it will remove current obnoxious smells from this amenity area.
it will transform the visual aspect and amenity value of the Riverside Walk.
it will cease the current discharges of raw sewage to the Liffey at the Riverside Walk amenity area.
it will improve the quality of the water in the River Liffey.
it will allow development and clean-up of the current derelict sites and buildings in the village.
It will allow the village to develop in a controlled way.

Waste Water Discharge Authorisation


A system for the licensing or certification of waste water discharges (WWD) from areas served by
local authority sewer networks was brought into effect by Mr John Gormley, Minster for the
Environment, Heritage and Local Government on 27th September 2007. The licensing and
certification authorisation process was introduced on a phased basis commencing on 14th December
2007 in accordance with the requirements of the Waste Water Discharge (Authorisation) Regulations,
2007 (S.I. No. 684 of 2007).
Up to this Local Authorities did their own thing.
Applications for WWDA were made on a time scale where the largest WWTPs had to apply earliest.
Licenses must be reviewed within 6 years after being issued but can be reviewed any time after 3 years.

Kildare County Council applied to the Environmental Protection Agency for a Waste Water Discharge
Licence for Ballymore Eustace on the 27th February 2009.

When Kildare applied to the Environmental Protection Agency for a Waste Water Discharge Licence
(WWDL) in respect of the discharge from Ballymore Eustace Waste Water Treatment Plant into the
River Liffey the Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association (TSAA) made the
following submission to the EPA.

SUBMISSION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY


PO Box 3000,
Johnstown Castle,
Co. Wexford,

Re: Application by Kildare County Council for a Waste Water Discharge Licence for the Ballymore
Eustace Waste Water Treatment Plant discharge into the River Liffey.
(Register No. D0238-01)

The Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association wishes to make the following
submission on Kildare County Councils application (in accordance with the Waste Water Discharge
(Authorisation) Regulations 2007) to the Environmental Protection Agency for a Waste Water
Discharge Licence (WWDL) in respect of the discharge from Ballymore Eustace Waste Water
Treatment Plant into the River Liffey.

The Association feels that there is something wrong in Kildare County Council applying for a WWDL
for a proposed new sewage treatment plant that has not yet been sanctioned by the Department of the
Environment. We believe that Kildare County Council should have to apply for a WWDL for the
existing overloaded Sewage Treatment Plant at The Strand, Ballymore Eustace. The EPA would have
no option but to refuse such a licence and in so doing would highlight Kildare County Councils
negligence for many years in not providing proper sewage treatment facilities in Ballymore Eustace
and for allowing raw sewage to pollute the River Liffey upstream of the abstraction point to a large
drinking water supply plant at Leixlip. What is the status of the existing discharge if Kildare County
Council is not seeking a licence for same? Is it now an illegal discharge in accordance with the Waste
Water Discharge (Authorisation) Regulations 2007?

The Association has for over thirty years been asking Kildare County Council to upgrade the existing
sewage treatment plant at the Strand, Ballymore Eustace but without any success. The sewage plant
regularly discharges raw sewage into the Liffey at Ballymore Eustace Bridge and a sewage fungus has
built up downstream of the discharge point. We are therefore hopeful that the Department of the
Environment will sanction the construction of the proposed new Waste Water Treatment Plant at the
Kimmeens, Ballymore Eustace and put an end to the present disgraceful discharge into the Liffey.
We are concerned however about the combined effects of the Wicklow County Councils Blessington
Waste Water Treatment Plant discharging into Golden Falls Lake just upstream of Ballymore Eustace
village and Kildare County Councils proposed WWTP discharging into the Liffey at Ballymore
Eustace. The flow of the River Liffey at Ballymore Eustace is controlled under the terms of the Liffey
Reservoir Act 1936 which allows the ESB to release compensation water up to 1.5 cubic metres per
second when the level in Poulaphouca Reservoir is below low water level i.e 581ft O.D. The ESB
may, if it suits their purpose, also shut off the flow of the Liffey completely. However, under normal
circumstances (i.e. water level in Poulaphouca Reservoir above 581ft O.D.), the ESB releases 1.5 cubic
metres of water per second to maintain the flow of the Liffey and when generating electricity at Golden
Falls Hydro Electricity Generating Station the ESB releases 30 cubic metres of water per second
referred to locally as flood water. There are therefore, only two flows to the Liffey at Ballymore
Eustace, 1.5 m3/sec and 30 m3/sec. For the past three years 2006, 2007 and 2008 the ESB has released
a flow of 1.5 m3/sec. for 91.54%, 86.53% and 79.32% of the time respectively, and this includes the
two extremely wet years of 2007 and 2008. Dublin City Council are presently constructing a massive
upgrade and extension of their Water Treatment Plant at Ballymore Eustace that will allow them to
abstract 318 million litres of water per day (70 m.g.d.) from Poulaphouca Reservoir, so it is likely that
the percentage times for a release of 1.5 m3/sec to maintain the flow of the Liffey will increase in
future years. It is imperative therefore that the assimilative capacity of the Liffey at Ballymore Eustace
is based on a flow of 1.5 cubic metres per second.

(Note: On Thursday 9th April 2009 the flow of the Liffey was completely shut off due we were
informed by the ESB to a power failure at Poulaphouca Power Station which in turn tripped Golden
Falls Power Station. It appears that the valve which discharges the compensation flow to the river
closed and could not be reopened by remote control from Turlough Hill. The ESB had to send a staff
member to Golden Falls to reopen the valve manually to get the Liffey flowing again. While it is
perfectly legitimate under the Liffey Reservoir Act 1936 for the ESB to shut off the flow of the Liffey,
how can this be allowed to happen? A fail-safe system must be installed as a matter of urgency. To
allow anybody to shut off the flow of the Liffey must be unconstitutional and be in breach of the Water
Framework Directive and the Habitats Directive)

The Association is totally opposed to the Applicant, on page 24 of the Design Report, using the mean
river flow to calculate the assimilative capacity of the Liffey in terms of phosphorus. The Molybdate
Reactive Phosphorus (MRP) concentration reported under the Phosphorus Regulations Quality
Standards for Rivers, is a median value, not a mean value and the two values can differ
significantly. Using the same formula as the Applicant to determine the waste assimilative capacity of
the Liffey at Ballymore Eustace using 1.5 m3/sec as the river flow gives the following result.

WAC = (Cmax Cback) X F95 X 86.4

WAC = Waste Assimilative Capacity (kg/d)


Cmax = Maximum Concentration (mg/l)
Cback =Background Concentration (mg/l)
F95 = 95 Percentile Flow (m3/s)
86.4 = Conversion Constant

WAC = (0.03 0.01) x 1.5 x 86.4 kg/d MRP


= 2.59 kg/d MRP

The Association believes that since a MRP concentration of 0.03 mgP/l would only achieve a
Biological Quality (Q) Rating / Q Index of 4, (S.I. No.258 of 1998) a more ambitious target, i.e. Q
Index 4 5, should be the aim. This would lead to the following calculation:

WAC = (0.02 0.01) x 1.5 x 86.4 kg/d MRP


= 1.3 kg/d MRP

Examining the Ortho-Phosphate (mgP/l) figures in Wicklow County Councils Water Analysis of
Golden Falls Lake for the first six months of 2007 it appears to the Association that a background MRP
concentration of 0.01 mgP/l is too conservative and a more likely figure is 0.015. This would change
the above examples of Waste Assimilative Capacity for Phosphorous to 1.94 kg/d and 0.65 kg/d
respectively. The Association, therefore believes that the Applicants Waste Assimilative Capacity
figure of 10 kg/d Total Phosphorus for the River Liffey at Ballymore Eustace is erroneous and
dangerously too high. Also, analysis submitted by the Applicant for water samples taken from
Ballymore Eustace Upstream of the present Sewage Plant on the 13/11/08 and 23/11/08 show Ortho
Phosphate concentrations of 0.05 mgP/l and 0.04 mgP/l respectively, and would lead one to believe
that the Waste Assimilative Capacity of the Liffey at Ballymore Eustace has already been used up by
Blessington WWTP discharging into Golden Falls Lake.

The Association is also concerned that the concentration of Total Phosphorus in Golden Falls Lake for
the first six months of 2007 averaged 0.11 mgP/litre, and is off the radar with regard to the Phosphorus
Regulations, Water Standards for Lakes (S.I. No. 258/1998). Also, analysis of samples taken from the
River Liffey at Ballymore Eustace Upstream of the present sewage treatment plant discharge point on
the 13th and 23rd November 2008 and submitted by the Applicant show Total Phosphorus
concentrations of 0.09 mgP/l and 0.07 mgP/l respectively.

Since the beginning of March 2009 (at least) the Liffey at Ballymore Eustace is polluted with an algae
growth, which the Association believes is being caused by nutrients from the Blessington WWTP
discharge into Golden Falls Lake. While we are hopeful that this scum like algae is not having a
detrimental affect on the spawning gravels or aquatic fly life, it is seriously reducing the recreational
value of the Liffey and is unacceptable.

The Association respectfully requests the EPA to consider the combined effects the Blessington
WWTP and the proposed Ballymore Eustace WWTP will have on the water quality of the River Liffey
before issuing a Waste Water Discharge Licence. We also request the EPA to set strict upper limits
with regard to Phosphorus discharges from the WWTP. A comprehensive monitoring programme of
the WWTP and the Liffey downstream of the discharge point must be put in place. Anglers retrieve
lines by hand through the water and often eat sandwiches at the riverside so it is important that Faecal
Coliforms and Total Coliforms counts are carried out, and in the interest of health and safety, all results
must be made available to the public on a monthly basis via the internet or by some other easily
accessible means.

______________________________
Gary Bolger,
Honorary Secretary,
Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association
Barrack Street,
Ballymore Eustace,
Co. Kildare.
22nd April 2009

The Eastern Regional Fisheries Board (ERFB) sent in a submission dated 3rd September 2009.

The EPA on the 30th September 2009 requested Further Information from Kildare County Council and
the Council replied dated 28th January 2010. As part of threir reply Kildare County Council stated as
follows (ii) Kildare County Council has submitted an updated Assessment of Needs for Water
Services Investment Programme 2010 2012 to the DoEHLG (on 23/10/09). Included in this
assessment is the new WWTP for Ballymore Eustace, which has been identified as a needs priority for
some time. The estimated project cost is 2.5m. The scheme is currently being processed under the
Serviced Land Initiative Programme and there is recognition of the possibility that this project may
need to transfer to the main capital investment projects list having regard to current funding shortfalls.

The EPA granted a WWDL for the Ballymore Eustace Sewage Treatment on February 2011. The
Licence specifies that the sewage treatment plant must be operational by 31st December 2012.

Comparison of Discharge Parameters, Proposed New Plant and Old Plant (mg/l)
Proposed new Old WWTP (Average 2007-
Parameter
WWTP 2008)
BOD 25 181
COD 125 504
Total Phosphorus (as
2 8
P)
Ortho Phosphorus (as
1 4
P)
Ammonia (as N) 5 28
Suspended Solids 25 228

As can be seen there will be a big inprovement in the discharge quality.

Following the issuing of the WWDL the Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers sent the
following letter to various relevant authorities.

(more)

Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers AssociationWicklow County Councils Application for
a Waste Water Discharge Licence into Golden Falls Lake.Wicklow County Council applied to the
Environmental Protection Agency for a Waste Water Discharge Licence to discharge effluent from
Blessington Sewage Treatment Plant into Golden Falls Lake.The TSAA made the following
submission etc

BALLYMORE EUSTACE TROUT AND SALMON ANGLERS ASSOCIATION

Barrack Street,
Ballymore Eustace,
Co. Kildare.
5th September 2008

Environmental Protection Agency,


PO Box 3000,
Johnstown Castle,
Co. Wexford,

Re: Application by Wicklow County Council for a Waste Water Discharge Licence for the Blessington
Waste Water Treatment Plant discharge into Golden Falls Lake.(Register No. D0063-01)

Dear Sir/Madam,On behalf of the above Association I wish to make the following submission on
Wicklow County Councils application (in accordance with the Waste Water Discharge (Authorisation)
Regulations 2007) to the Environmental Protection Agency for a Waste Water Discharge Licence in
respect of the discharge from Blessington Waste Water Treatment Plant into Golden Falls Lake.When
Wicklow County Council built a new Sewage Treatment Plant in Blessington in the mid 1980s they
and Dublin Corporation decided to discharge the effluent into Golden Falls Lake in order not to pollute
Poulaphouca Reservoir. If there was a danger of polluting Poulaphouca Reservoir then what chance
had Golden Falls Lake, which is barely one hundredth the size of Poulaphouca Reservoir and with far
less dilution available. The 50 acre Golden Falls Lake is in County Kildare. In November 1984 (Ref
295/84) Kildare County Council gave Wicklow County Council permission to lay the four mile long
discharge pipeline from Blessington Sewage Treatment Plant through townslands in County Kildare in
order to reach and discharge into Golden Falls Lake. This neighbours from hell act by Wicklow
County Council met with considerable opposition from the people of Ballymore Eustace. Despite all
the assurances we received from Wicklow County Council, Kildare County Council and various
Government Ministers we didnt have to wait long before the EPA Report Water Quality in Ireland
1998 2000 pointed out that Golden Falls Lake in the year 2000 was in the Hypertropic Category i.e.
a Very High level of Pollution. Wicklow County Councils first response was to blame Simpleseas
Fish Farm at Poulaphouca Power Station as being primarily responsible for the pollution but this was
categorically denied by Simpleseas and backed up by Kildare County Council who monitored the
discharge from the fish farm. It was pointed out by Simpleseas management that when the water level
in Golden Falls Lake was lowered by the ESB in the summer of 2002 to allow maintenance work on
Golden Falls Dam, a high (15 20 feet) sludge bank was visible at the Blessington Sewage Treatment
Plant Discharge Point in Golden Falls and that this indicated that the Sewage Plant was primarily
responsible for the pollution. The Association believes that a site investigation should be conducted to
find out if the sludge bank still remains and if so, then Wicklow County Council should be made
remove the sludge and clean up the location. Blessington WWTP can discharge an average of over 212
kg of suspended solids per week into Golden Falls Lake and up to in excess of 870 kg per week and the
Association believes that this level of solids dumped into the Lake is unsustainable in the long term.

The Association was surprised to learn from the Waste Water Discharge application form that the ESB
granted a licence to Wicklow County Council to discharge from Blessington into Golden Falls Lake
(subject to volumetric and quality standards being achieved in the treated effluent) as we were not
aware the ESB were a licensing authority and we respectfully request the EPA to examine this licence
in detail. The WWDL Application also states A part of the discharge license agreement with the ESB
provided for water quality monitoring on a monthly basis by Wicklow County Council. This
monitoring has been undertaken for the last 21 years by Wicklow County Council and the analysis of
the data indicates a good quality receiving water with no adverse impacts evident from the wastewater
treatment works discharge. How can Wicklow County Council make such a claim in light of the EPA
Report Water Quality in Ireland 1998 2000 with regard to Golden Falls Lake? Also, the
Association believes that little if any sampling of the water in Golden Falls was carried out in the past
year.

In a reply, concerning the Blessington WWTP discharge to Golden Falls Lake dated 2nd May 1985, to
Mr. Joe Bermingham T.D. Minister of State, Department of Finance, Mr. John Carrick, County
Engineer, Kildare County Council states inter alia The possibility of requiring Wicklow County
Council to take the effluent to a point downstream of Ballymore Eustace was considered initially, but
after examination referred to above, it was found unnecessary. Wicklow County Council were advised,
however, that should unforeseen developments take place in the area which might increase a
pollutional load on the river beyond accepted levels, then alternative arrangements would have to be
made regarding the disposal of the effluent e.g. taking the discharge downstream of Ballymore, or the
provision of tertiary treatment. We now know that it did not take long before the pollutional load
increased beyond accepted levels even though the population of Blessington was well below the
design capacity of the waste water treatment plant. See Chapter 11 page 88 and Appendix 2 page 146
of the Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association History 1974 2007 (enclosed as
an Appendix to this submission) for a pretty detailed account of the Associations and local opposition
to Wicklow County Councils plans to discharge effluent from Blessington Waste Water Treatment
Plant into Golden Falls Lake. The Association believes that unforeseen developments have taken
place as Wicklow County Council in the Wicklow County Development Plan 2004 2010 have now
designated Blessington as a Primary Local Growth Centre and this warrants a whole new look at
discharging into Golden Falls Lake just upstream of the village of Ballymore Eustace.

The 2002 and 2006 Census figures show that the population of Blessington increased from 2509 to
4018 respectively, an increase of 60.1%. As provided in the Wicklow County Development Plan,
Blessington is designated a Primary Local Growth Centre with an indicative population in 2010 of
6,500. In March 2007 Wicklow County Council put a new 6000 P.E. Blessington Waste Water
Treatment Plant into operation. It appears to the Association from these figures that the new plant will
be overloaded almost as soon as it is built. The Association also notes that sewage sludge is being
imported from other villages in West Wicklow. The Association was informed by letter dated 21st
March 2003 that Wicklow County Council proposed to upgrade the Blessington Waste Water
Treatment Plant to include tertiary treatment and phosphorous removal. However we note from
Wicklow County Councils application notice for a Waste Water Discharge Licence (Wicklow People
13th August 2008) that the new Blessington Waste Water Treatment Plant is only a secondary
treatment plant. Why does Wicklow County Council keep trying to mislead us? The Association is
appalled to learn, from the analysis results of the final effluent in the application form for a discharge
licence, that the new Blessington WWTP is not operating to Works Compliance Standard of
phosphorus removal for a massive 76.9% of the time. If this is already happening with a new plant,
what are the prospects for the future. We also note from the application that the coagulant used for
phosphorus reduction is Aluminium Sulphate. Is this the reason for the high background levels of
aluminium recorded in the Liffey samples upstream of Dublin City Councils discharge to the Liffey at
Ballymore Eustace from their Water Purification Plant. (Following a visit to the Dublin City Council
Waterworks on the 13th July 2006, the Office of Environmental Enforcement EPA requested amongst
other things a calculation of the assimilative capacity of the River Liffey with regards to the levels of
aluminium in the discharge from the treatment plant should be carried out. (PAE2005/194)

Because of the circumstances that exist at Golden Falls Lake the Association has always held the view
that the discharge from Blessington Waste Water Treatment Plant should never have been allowed into
this small man made Lake just upstream of the village of Ballymore Eustace. Golden Falls Lake was
set up under the Liffey Reservoir Act 1936, which allowed the Electricity Supply Board (ESB) harness
the Liffey at Poulaphouca for electricity generation and Dublin Corporation to abstract 5 million
gallons of water per day for a public water supply. Dublin City Council are now constructing a
massive upgrade and extension of the Water Purification Plant at Ballymore Eustace which will allow
them treat 70 million gallons of water per day (318 Ml). Golden Falls Lake was constructed as a buffer
Lake to collect the huge water flows that emit from Poulaphouca Hydro Power Station (30 MW) when
it is generating electricity (each of the two turbines can discharge between 11 and 38 cubic metres per
second into Golden Falls Lake depending on turbine output i.e. 76 m3/sec when both turbines are
operating at 15 MW). This water is then released in a much-reduced flow from Golden Falls Lake via
Golden Fall Hydro Power Station (4MW) to the River Liffey.

Under the Liffey Reservoir Act 1936, the ESB may at all times release up to 1.5 cubic metres of water
per second from Golden Falls Lake to maintain the flow in the River Liffey (referred to as
compensation water in the 1936 Act) and when Poulaphouca Reservoir is above the low water level
(581 ft OD in the 1936 Act) the ESB may also generate electricity and thus release large volumes of
water (30 million galls of water per second) to the River Liffey downstream of Golden Falls.

With the increased volumes of water abstraction from Poulaphouca Reservoir there is now less hydro
generation of electricity taking place and so there is less generation floods on the River Liffey than
heretofore. In 2006 and 2007 the flow of the Liffey at Ballymore Eustace downstream of Poulaphouca
and Golden Falls was 1.5 cubic metres per second for 91.54 % and 86.53% of the time respectively and
30 cubic metres per second for the remaining times. It can be seen that, through the goodness of their
heart, (believe it or not, the Liffey Reservoir Act 1936 allows the ESB to shut off the flow of the Liffey
if that suits their purpose, but thankfully this has never happened) the ESB always release a flow into
the Liffey downstream of Golden Falls Lake.

However, the Association does not believe that this is the case with the flow into Golden Falls Lake
from Poulaphouca Reservoir. The turbines at Poulaphouca Hydro Generation Station are used to
control the water levels in Golden Falls Lake. When the turbines are on-load there is a huge volume
entering and filling up the Lake but when the turbines are not on load there is no flow into Golden
Falls and the level in the Lake drops until the turbines again fill it up. The discharge from Blessington
Waste Water Treatment Plant is a continuous flow into Golden Falls Lake and we believe that this
leads to a slug discharge into the Lake, with little dilution when the turbines are not in operation, i.e.
for the vast majority of the time, and this slug only get a large dilution when the turbines are switched
on-load to maintain the water level in the Lake and for electricity generation. This onoff operation
also allows the solids to settle out on the bed of the Lake.

The Water Quality Management Plan for the Liffey Catchment specifies that the mean annual
concentration for total Phosphate is not to exceed 0.035 mg/l P in Poulaphouca Reservoir in order to
protect the beneficial uses in the Reservoir. Figures for Golden Falls Lake during 2007 reveal the total
Phosphorus concentration is above the 0.035 mg/l P level. Faecal Coliforms counts of over 2400 were
also recorded in the Golden Falls Lake during 2007. The effects of the increased levels of water
abstraction from Poulaphouca Reservoir by Dublin City Council and Kildare County Councils
generosity in allowing Wicklow County Council discharge into Golden Falls Lake are now coming
home to roost. A slimy fungus like growth has now appeared on the concrete slipway of Golden Falls
Dam. The ESB feel it necessary to erect a health and safety notice (see photo below) at Golden Falls
Power Station in Ballymore Eustace but no such warning is deemed necessary by Wicklow or Kildare
County Councils for anglers, water skiers or other users of Golden Falls Lake or the River Liffey. Is
there a health and safety issue with the Blessington WWTP discharge into Golden Falls Lake that the
public and Lake users are not being told about? The Association is also concerned, as it appears that
Wicklow County Council took few, if any, water samples from Golden Falls Lake since July 2007.

There are a number of other discharges into Golden Falls Lake. The Association was particularly
concerned when Wicklow County Council and An Bord Pleanala in 2004 granted planning permission
to Comfort Hotel Tulfarris to discharge the effluent from a proposed new sewage treatment plant for an
extended Tulfarris Golf and Country Club Hotel and Tulfarris Village into Poulaphouca Gorge
downstream of Poulaphouca Dam. The only dilution available at this location would be the water that
leaks from the Dam but the effluent would however make its way into Golden Falls Lake. (See
Chapter 14 page 151 of the Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association History 1974
2007). As far as the Association is aware, the new sewage treatment plant has not been constructed yet
as it appears that the ESB will not allow the effluent be discharged through and onto their
property. Granting planning permission for this one mile long discharge outfall to Golden Falls shows
that Wicklow County Council has little if any regard for the water quality in Golden Falls Lake or the
beneficial uses of the Lake, as Golden Falls Lake is in County Kildare as is the village of Ballymore
Eustace. It is similar to dumping in a neighbours back yard.

Under the heading Attachment B.11: Significant Correspondence, Wicklow County Council states
There has been no incidents of non-compliance associated with this WWTP and thus the EPA have
not had to issue Wicklow County Council with a section 63 notice . When the Association first
learned of the pollution of Golden Falls Lake from the EPA Report, we wrote to Wicklow County
Manager by letter dated 5th February 2003 about the pollution of Golden Falls Lake. This letter was
copied to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Minister for Fisheries, Kildare
County Manager, Eastern Regional Fisheries Board, Mr. Charles McCreevy T.D. Minister for Finance,
Mr. Dick Roche T.D. Minister of State, TDs and Cllrs. Billy Timmins, Liz McManus, Mildred Fox,
Sean Power and Cllrs. Liam Kavanagh, John Dardis and Billy Hillis. The Senior Executive Officer,
Environmental Services Section, Wicklow County Council replied by letter dated 21st March 2003
which was also copied to all the above blaming the fish farm at Poulaphouca for the pollution and
stating (and nothwithstanding that this Council believes that it is not primarily responsible for the
deteriorating situation), the Council, as part of its planned upgrading of its treatment facilities proposes
to provide tertiary treatment including phosphorous removal, with the purpose of further reducing the
impact of its discharge on the Golden Falls. There was a raft of correspondence concerning the
pollution of Golden Falls between the various parties in the early part of 2003 including Ministers,
TDs, Kildare County Council and Councillors to Wicklow County Council. As mentioned earlier, the
management of the fish farm denied they were responsible for the pollution of the Lake and pointed out
the 15-20 feet high sludge bank on the bed of the Lake downstream of the Blessington WWTP
discharge, and from there down, sludge of 1.5 2.0 feet in depth. Wicklow County Council in their
WWDL Application obviously do not consider any of this significant correspondence.

The Association respectfully requests the Environmental Protection Agency to impose stringent tertiary
treatment limits, nutrient removal conditions and monitoring arrangements, on Blessington Waste
Water Treatment Plant Discharge and to consider possible alternatives to discharging into Golden Falls
Lake just upstream of Ballymore Eustace. Such alternatives might include discharging to Osberstown
via Naas or discharging to Ringsend via City West. Compensation packages would of course have to
be negotiated with the relevant Local Authority.

Yours sincerely,_____________________________
Gary Bolger
Honorary Secretary

BALLYMORE EUSTACE TROUT AND SALMON ANGLERS ASSOCIATION


Barrack
Street, BallymoreEustace,
Co.
Kildare. 5th September 2008
Mr. Padraig McManus,
Chief Executive,
Electricity Supply Board,
Lower Fitzwilliam Street,
Dublin 2,

Re: Application by Wicklow County Council for a Waste Water Discharge Licence for the Blessington
Waste Water Treatment Plant discharge into Golden Falls Lake.
(EPA Register No. D0063-01)

Dear Mr. McManus,

Wicklow County Councils have applied (in accordance with the Waste Water Discharge
(Authorisation) Regulations 2007) to the Environmental Protection Agency for a Waste Water
Discharge Licence (WWDL) in respect of the discharge from Blessington Waste Water Treatment
Plant into Golden Falls Lake.

When Wicklow County Council built a new Sewage Treatment Plant in Blessington in the mid 1980s
they and Dublin Corporation decided to discharge the effluent into Golden Falls Lake in order not to
pollute Poulaphouca Reservoir. If there was a danger of polluting Poulaphouca Reservoir then what
chance had Golden Falls Lake, which is barely one hundredth the size of Poulaphouca Reservoir and
with far less dilution available. Most of the 50 acre Golden Falls Lake is in County Kildare. In
November 1984 (Ref 295/84) Kildare County Council gave Wicklow County Council permission to
lay the four mile long discharge pipeline from Blessington Sewage Treatment Plant through
townslands in County Kildare in order to reach and discharge into Golden Falls Lake. It also appears
from the WWDL Application that the ESB granted a licence for the discharge into Golden Falls
Lake. This neighbours from hell act by Wicklow County Council met with considerable opposition
from the people of Ballymore Eustace. Despite all the assurances we received from Wicklow County
Council, Kildare County Council and various Government Ministers we didnt have to wait long before
the EPA Report Water Quality in Ireland 1998 2000 pointed out that Golden Falls Lake in the year
2000 was in the Hypertropic Category i.e. a Very High level of Pollution. Wicklow County Councils
first response was to blame Simpleseas Fish Farm at Poulaphouca Power Station as being primarily
responsible for the pollution but this was categorically denied by Simpleseas and backed up by Kildare
County Council who monitored the discharge from the fish farm. It was pointed out by Simpleseas
management that when the water level in Golden Falls Lake was lowered in the summer of 2002 a high
sludge bank was visible at the Blessington Sewage Treatment Plant Discharge Point in Golden Falls
and that this indicated that the Sewage Plant was primarily responsible for the pollution.

In a reply, concerning the Blessington WWTP discharge to Golden Falls Lake dated 2nd May 1985, to
Mr. Joe Bermingham T.D. Minister of State, Department of Finance, Mr. John Carrick, County
Engineer, Kildare County Council states inter alia The possibility of requiring Wicklow County
Council to take the effluent to a point downstream of Ballymore Eustace was considered initially, but
after examination referred to above, it was found unnecessary. Wicklow County Council were advised,
however, that should unforeseen developments take place in the area which might increase a
pollutional load on the river beyond accepted levels, then alternative arrangements would have to be
made regarding the disposal of the effluent e.g. taking the discharge downstream of Ballymore, or the
provision of tertiary treatment. We now know that it did not take long before the pollutional load
increased beyond accepted levels even though the population of Blessington was well below the
design capacity of the waste water treatment plant. The Association believes that unforeseen
developments have taken place as Wicklow County Council in the Wicklow County Development
Plan 2004 2010 have now designated Blessington as a Primary Local Growth Centre and this
warrants a whole new look at discharging into Golden Falls Lake just upstream of the village of
Ballymore Eustace.

The 2002 and 2006 Census figures show that the population of Blessington increased from 2509 to
4018 respectively, an increase of 60.1%. As provided in the Wicklow County Development Plan,
Blessington is designated a Primary Local Growth Centre with an indicative population in 2010 of
6,500. In March 2007 Wicklow County Council put a new 6000 P.E. Blessington Waste Water
Treatment Plant into operation. It appears to the Association from these figures that the new plant will
be overloaded almost as soon as it is built. The Association also notes that sewage sludge is being
imported from other villages in West Wicklow. The Association was informed by letter from Wicklow
County Council dated 21st March 2003 that Blessington Waste Water Treatment Plant was to be
upgraded to include tertiary treatment and phosphorous removal. However we note from Wicklow
County Councils application notice for a Waste Water Discharge Licence (Wicklow People 13th
August 2008) that the Blessington Waste Water Treatment Plant is only a secondary treatment
plant. Why does Wicklow County Council keep trying to mislead us? The Association is appalled to
learn from the analysis results of the final effluent in the application form for a discharge licence that
the new Blessington WWTP is not operating to Works Compliance Standard of phosphorus removal
for huge 76.9% of the time. If this is already happening with a new plant what are the prospects for the
future.

Because of the circumstances that exist at Golden Falls Lake the Association has always held the view
that the discharge from Blessington Waste Water Treatment Plant should never have been allowed into
this small man made Lake just upstream of the village of Ballymore Eustace. Golden Falls Lake was
set up under the Liffey Reservoir Act 1936, which allowed the Electricity Supply Board (ESB) harness
the Liffey at Poulaphouca for electricity generation and Dublin Corporation to abstract 5 million
gallons of water per day for a public water supply. Dublin City Council are now constructing a
massive upgrade and extension of the Water Purification Plant at Ballymore Eustace which will allow
them treat 70 million gallons of water per day. Golden Falls Lake was constructed as a buffer Lake to
collect the huge water flows that emit from Poulaphouca Hydro Power Station (30 MW) when it is
generating electricity (each of the two turbines can discharge between 11 and 38 cubic metres per
second into Golden Falls Lake depending on turbine output i.e. 76 m3/sec when both turbines are
operating at 15 MW). This water is then released in a much-reduced flow from Golden Falls Lake via
Golden Fall Hydro Power Station (4MW) to the River Liffey.

Under the Liffey Reservoir Act 1936, the ESB may at all times release up to 1.5 cubic metres of water
per second from Golden Falls Lake to maintain the flow in the River Liffey (referred to as
compensation water in the 1936 Act) and when Poulaphouca Reservoir is above the low water level
(581 ft OD in the 1936 Act) the ESB may also generate electricity and thus release large volumes of
water (30 million galls of water per second) to the River Liffey downstream of Golden Falls.

With the increased volumes of water abstraction from Poulaphouca Reservoir there is now less hydro
generation of electricity taking place and so there is less generation floods on the River Liffey than
heretofore. In 2006 and 2007 the flow of the Liffey at Ballymore Eustace downstream of Poulaphouca
and Golden Falls was 1.5 cubic metres per second for 91.54 % and 86.53% of the time respectively and
30 cubic metres per second for the remaining times. It can be seen that, through the goodness of their
heart, (believe it or not, the Liffey Reservoir Act 1936 allows the ESB to shut off the flow of the Liffey
if that suits their purpose, but thankfully this has never happened) the ESB always release a flow into
the Liffey downstream of Golden Falls Lake.

However, the Association does not believe that this is the case with the flow into Golden Falls Lake
from Poulaphouca Reservoir. The turbines at Poulaphouca Hydro Generation Station are used to
control the water levels in Golden Falls Lake. When the turbines are on-load there is a huge volume
entering and filling up the Lake but when the turbines are not on load there is no flow into Golden
Falls and the level in the Lake drops until the turbines again fill it up. The discharge from Blessington
Waste Water Treatment Plant is a continuous flow into Golden Falls Lake and we believe that this
leads to a slug discharge into the Lake, with little dilution when the turbines are not in operation, i.e.
for the vast majority of the time, and this slug only get a large dilution when the turbines are switched
on-load to maintain the water level in the Lake and for electricity generation.

The Water Quality Management Plan for the Liffey Catchment specifies that the mean annual
concentration for total Phosphate is not to exceed 0.035 mg/l P in Poulaphouca Reservoir in order to
protect the beneficial uses in the Reservoir. Figures for Golden Falls Lake during 2007 reveal the total
Phosphorus concentration is above the 0.035 mg/l P level. Faecal Coliforms counts of over 2400 were
also recorded in the Golden Falls Lake during 2007. The effects of the increased levels of water
abstraction from Poulaphouca Reservoir by Dublin City Council and Kildare County Councils
generosity in allowing Wicklow County Council discharge into Golden Falls Lake are now coming
home to roost. A slimy fungus like growth has now appeared on the concrete slipway of Golden Falls
Dam. The ESB feel it necessary to erect a health and safety notice (see photo below) at Golden Falls
Power Station in Ballymore Eustace but no such warning is deemed necessary by Wicklow or Kildare
County Councils for anglers, water skiers or other users of Golden Falls Lake or the River Liffey. Is
there a health and safety issue with the Blessington WWTP discharge into Golden Falls Lake that the
public and Lake users are not being told about? The Association is also concerned, as it appears that
Wicklow County Council took few, if any, water samples from Golden Falls Lake since July 2007.

There are a number of other discharges into Golden Falls Lake. The Association was particularly
concerned when Wicklow County Council and An Bord Pleanala in 2004 granted planning permission
to Comfort Hotel Tulfarris to discharge the effluent from a proposed new sewage treatment plant for an
extended Tulfarris Golf and Country Club Hotel and Tulfarris Village into Poulaphouca Gorge
downstream of Poulaphouca Dam. The only dilution available at this location would be the water that
leaks from the Dam but the effluent would however make its way into Golden Falls Lake. As far as the
Association is aware, the new sewage treatment plant has not been constructed yet as it appears that the
ESB will not allow the effluent be discharged through and onto their property. Granting planning
permission for this one mile long discharge outfall to Golden Falls shows that Wicklow County
Council has little if any regard for the water quality in Golden Falls Lake or the beneficial uses of the
Lake, as most of Golden Falls Lake is in County Kildare as is the village of Ballymore Eustace. It is
similar to dumping in a neighbours back yard.

The Association has made a submission to the EPA on Wicklow County Councils WWDL
Application and respectfully request ESB to support our request to the Environmental Protection
Agency that they impose stringent tertiary treatment limits, nutrient removal conditions and monitoring
arrangements, on Blessington Waste Water Treatment Plant Discharge and to consider possible
alternatives to discharging into Golden Falls Lake just upstream of Ballymore Eustace.

Yours sincerely,

_____________________________
Gary Bolger
Honorary Secretary

Photo of Notice did not copy


Health and Safety Notice at Golden Falls Power Station

Letters similar to above letter to ESB sent to the following requesting them to support our submission
to EPA.

Kildare County Manager, Aras Chill Dara, Devoy Park, Naas.


Padraig McManus, Chief Executive, ESB, Lower Fitzwilliam Street, Dublin
Pat Doherty, CEO, Eastern Regional Fisheries Board, Blackrock, Co. Dublin.
The Secretary, An Taisce-National Trust for Ireland, The Tailors Hall, Dublin 8.
Mr John Cregan, Director Regional Health Office, Health Service Executive Dublin Mid Leinster,
Clonminch, Tullamore, Co. Offaly.
Dr P.J. Claffey, Programme Manager, Health and Safety Authority, Metropolitan Building, James
Joyce Street, Dublin 1.
Ballymore Eustace Community Development Association, CDA
By Hand, Golden Falls Water Ski Club.
Email Councillor Billy Hillis, Dunstown, Brannockstown, Naas, Co. Kildare

Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association

Barrack Street,
Ballymore Eustace,
Co. Kildare.
13th April 2009
Office of Environmental Enforcement,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Regional Inspectorate,
McCumiskey House,
Richview,
Clonskeagh Road,
Dublin 14.

Dear Sir,

On behalf of the above Association I wish to complain about the polluted state of the River Liffey at
Ballymore Eustace by an algae scum caused we believe by nutrients from Wicklow County Councils
Blessington WWTP discharge into Golden Falls Lake. While we are keeping our fingers crossed that
this scum like algae is not having a detrimental affect on the spawning gravels or aquatic fly life, it is
seriously reducing the recreational value of the Liffey and is totally unacceptable.

Analyses figures for the first seven months of 2007 reveal very high levels of total phosphorus (up to
0.55 mg P/l) in Golden Falls Lake and we believe that this is the cause of the algae bloom in the River
Liffey immediately downstream of Golden Falls and continuing for a number of miles downstream.

While Wicklow County Councils Blessington WWTP discharges into Golden Falls Lake, the Lake
itself is in County Kildare.

The Association requests the Environmental Protection Agency to examine the situation with a view to
having the phosphorus concentrations in Golden Falls Lake reduced to acceptable levels that will not
pollute the Lake and the Liffey.

Yours sincerely,

___________________________
Gary Bolger
Honorary Secretary

The above letter was sent on to the EPAs Waste Water Discharge Licence office dealing with
Blessington.

Another letter
Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association

Barrack Street,
Ballymore Eustace,
Co. Kildare.
19th April 2010
Office of Environmental Enforcement,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Regional Inspectorate, McCumiskey House,
Richview,
Clonskeagh Road,
Dublin 14.

Dear Sir/Madam,

On behalf of the above Association I wish to complain in the strongest possible terms about the
polluted state of the River Liffey at Ballymore Eustace by an algae scum caused we believe by
nutrients from Wicklow County Councils Blessington WWTP discharge into Golden Falls Lake. This
scum like algae on the surface is seriously reducing the recreational and aesthetic value of the Liffey
and is totally unacceptable. Since there is also a filamentous algae covering the gravels it is impossible
to say that it is not harming the aquatic invertebrates and fauna in the Liffey.
The Association reported a similar algae growth to the Office of Environmental Enforcement by letter
dated 13th April 2009 but no action to remedy the pollution has to our knowledge been taken by the
EPA, Wicklow or Kildare County Councils. This is totally unacceptable.

Analyses figures from Wicklow County Council for the first seven months of 2007 (the only figures
available to the Association) reveal very high levels of total phosphorus (up to 0.55 mg P/l) in Golden
Falls Lake and we believe that this is the cause of the algae bloom in the River Liffey immediately
downstream of Golden Falls and continuing for a number of miles downstream.

While Wicklow County Councils Blessington WWTP discharges into Golden Falls Lake, the Lake
itself is in County Kildare. The ESB control the water flow through the Lake.

The Association requests the Office of Environmental Enforcement, Environmental Protection Agency
to take immediate action to rid the Liffey of this horrible pollution. Indeed it is time the EPA took a
much firmer stance on all the sources of pollution to the Liffey in Ballymore Eustace.

Yours sincerely,

___________________________
Gary Bolger
Honorary Secretary

Copy: Mr. Eddie Sheehy, Manager, Wicklow County Council


Mr. Michael Malone, Manager, Kildare County Council
Mr. Padraig McManus C.E. Electricity Supply Board.
Mr. Pat Doherty, C.E.O. Eastern Regional Fisheries Board.

Again, this letter was passed on to the EPAs WWDL application office

And another letter


Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association

Broadleas,
Ballymore Eustace,
Co. Kildare.
25th April 2012
Office of Environmental Enforcement,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Regional Inspectorate, McCumiskey House,
Richview,
Clonskeagh Road,
Dublin 14.

Dear Sir/Madam,

On behalf of the above Association I wish to complain in the strongest possible terms about the
polluted state of the River Liffey at Ballymore Eustace by an algae scum caused we believe by
nutrients from Wicklow County Councils Blessington WWTP discharge into Golden Falls Lake. This
scum like algae on the surface is seriously reducing the recreational and aesthetic value of the Liffey
and is totally unacceptable. It is impossible now for anglers to fly fish the Liffey at Ballymore Eustace
without getting their lines and flies covered in algae. Also, since there is a filamentous algae covering
the gravels there is a danger that this is harming the aquatic invertebrates, flora and fauna of the Liffey
and this needs to be investigated.

The Association reported a similar algae growth to the Office of Environmental Enforcement by letter
dated 13th April 2009 and again by letter dated 19th April 2010. In the mistaken belief that something
was being done to remedy the situation we did not report the matter in 2011. However, no action to
remedy the pollution has to our knowledge been taken by the EPA, Wicklow or Kildare County
Councils. This is totally unacceptable.

Since the algae is present upstream and downstream of Kildare County Councils overloaded sewage
treatment plant discharge at Ballymore Eustace, the Association believes that the source of the
pollution is nutrients from the Blessington Waste Water Treatment Plant. While Wicklow County
Councils Blessington WWTP discharges into Golden Falls Lake, the Lake itself is in County
Kildare. The ESB control the water flow through the Lake and Licensed the discharge.

Wicklow County Council should never have been allowed discharge effluent from Blessington WWTP
into Golden Falls Lake where a minimum dilution was not guaranteed and this injustice must be
rectified. The Association requests the Office of Environmental Enforcement, Environmental
Protection Agency to take immediate action to rid the Liffey of this horrible pollution. Indeed it is time
the EPA took a much firmer stance on all the sources of pollution to the Liffey at Ballymore Eustace.

Yours sincerely,

___________________________
Thomas Deegan
Honorary Treasurer
Copy: Mr. Eddie Sheehy, Manager, Wicklow County Council
Mr. Michael Malone, Manager, Kildare County Council
Mr. Pat ODoherty Chief Executive, Electricity Supply Board.
Mr. William Walsh, Inland Fisheries Ireland.

The Association has also sought the support of many other bodies.

An Taisce made a submission dated 19/09/2008 and Ballymore Eustace CDA made a submission dated
22/9/2008. The Eastern Regional Fisheries Board (ERFB) made a submission dated 3/9/2009 and S.
Deegan made a submission dated 12/11/2009.

The EPA on the 19th June 2009 requested Further Information from Wicklow County Council.

Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association


Broadleas,
Ballymore Eustace,
Co. Kildare.
16th April 2011
Mr. Senan Colleran,
Hydro Manager,
Generation Operations,
ESB Energy International,
Ardnacrusha Gen. Stn.,
Castlebank,
Limerick,
Co. Clare.

Dear Mr. Colleran,

Thank you for your letter dated 10th April 2011 in response to our letter of the 28th February addressed
to ESB Chief Executive, Mr. Padraig McManus.

In our letter of the 28th February 2011 we stated The Association is also pleased that the EPA
Inspector dealing with the WWDL application has vindicated our concerns about water quality in the
River Liffey at Ballymore Eustace which were made know for many years and on many occasions to
all the relevant authorities dealing with the River Liffey. Despite all the assurances to the contrary, the
truth has finally emerged and the EPA Inspector tells us in her Report under the heading Assimilative
Capacity that At the design emission limit value (25 mg/l), there is no assimilative capacity in the
receiving water for BOD based on the quality standards under the European Communities
Environmental Objectives (Surface Water) Regulations, 2009, (S.I. No. 272 of 2009).
Table 3.0 highlights that the 95%ile upstream concentration of BOD (6 mg/l) is already in breach of
S.I. No. 272 of 2009 before consideration of the WWTP discharge contribution.
Also that There is no assimilative capacity in the receiving water for orthophosphate based on the
quality standards under the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Water)
Regulations, 2009, (S.I. No. 272 of 2009).
Tables 3.0 highlights that the 95%ile upstream concentration of orthophosphate (0.203 mg/l) is already
in breach of S.I. No. 272 of 2009 before consideration of the WWTP discharge contribution.
Again, There is no assimilative capacity in the receiving water for ammonia based on the 95%ile
quality standard under the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Water)
Regulations, 2009, (S.I. No. 272 of 2009).
Table 3.0 shows that 95%ile concentration upstream of ammonia (0.99 mg/l) is already in breach of
S.I. No. 272 of 2009 before consideration of the primary discharge contribution.

This is a terrible indictment of all the authorities operating on the upper Liffey. Despite publishing the
Water Quality Management Plan for the Liffey Catchment back in 1993 and the Three Rivers Project
Report in 2002, the Liffey at Ballymore Eustace is still in breach of European Communities
Environmental Objectives (Surface Water) Regulations, 2009, (S.I. No. 272 of 2009).
Since the ESB granted a licence to Wicklow County Council to discharge the effluent of Blessington
Waste Water Treatment Plant into Golden Falls Lake just upstream of Ballymore Eustace it too bears
some responsibility for the fact that the water quality in the Liffey at Ballymore Eustace Bridge
(upstream of Ballymore Eustace sewage treatment plant) is in breach of the European Communities
Environmental Objectives (Surface Water) Regulations, 2009, (S.I. No. 272 of 2009).
Does ESB monitor and review the conditions set down in the discharge licence and does it receive the
analytical results of the discharge and water quality in Golden Falls Lake on an ongoing and regular
basis?

ESB was also involved in the expansion of the Tulfarris Golf/Country Club/Village on Poulaphouca
Reservoir and we are aware that the Tulfarris sewage plant discharge to Poulaphouca Reservoir also
had problems in the past.

The Association, therefore, does not believe that ESB can now ignore the fact that the water quality in
the Liffey at Ballymore Eustace Bridge is in breach of the European Communities Environmental
Objectives (Surface Water) Regulations, 2009, (S.I. No. 272 of 2009) as if ESB played no role in
bringing about this situation. This however, does not imply any criticism of ESBs overall management
or other activities on the Reservoirs.

Yours sincerely,

__________________________
Thomas Deegan,

Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association


Broadleas,
Ballymore Eustace,
Mr. Ray Earle, Co. Kildare.
Eastern River Basin Project Coordinator, 16th April 2011
Block 1, Floor 4
Civic Offices,
Wood Quay,
Dublin 8.
Dear Ray,

The above Association wishes to make the following observations on the letter dated 21st March 2011
from Mr. Adrian Conway in response to our letter to you and Mr. Tom Leahy dated 28th February
2011.
In our letter of the 28th February 2011 we said The Association is also pleased that the EPA Inspector
dealing with the WWDL application has vindicated our concerns about water quality in the River
Liffey at Ballymore Eustace which were made know for many years and on many occasions to all the
relevant authorities dealing with the River Liffey. Despite all the assurances to the contrary, the truth
has finally emerged and the EPA Inspector tells us in her Report under the heading Assimilative
Capacity that At the design emission limit value (25 mg/l), there is no assimilative capacity in the
receiving water for BOD based on the quality standards under the European Communities
Environmental Objectives (Surface Water) Regulations, 2009, (S.I. No. 272 of 2009).
Table 3.0 highlights that the 95%ile upstream concentration of BOD (6 mg/l) is already in breach of
S.I. No. 272 of 2009 before consideration of the WWTP discharge contribution.
Also that There is no assimilative capacity in the receiving water for orthophosphate based on the
quality standards under the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Water)
Regulations, 2009, (S.I. No. 272 of 2009).
Tables 3.0 highlights that the 95%ile upstream concentration of orthophosphate (0.203 mg/l) is already
in breach of S.I. No. 272 of 2009 before consideration of the WWTP discharge contribution.
Again, There is no assimilative capacity in the receiving water for ammonia based on the 95%ile
quality standard under the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Water)
Regulations, 2009, (S.I. No. 272 of 2009).
Table 3.0 shows that 95%ile concentration upstream of ammonia (0.99 mg/l) is already in breach of
S.I. No. 272 of 2009 before consideration of the primary discharge contribution.

This is a terrible indictment of all the authorities operating on the upper Liffey. Despite publishing the
Water Quality Management Plan for the Liffey Catchment back in 1993 and the Three Rivers Project
Report in 2002, the Liffey at Ballymore Eustace is still in breach of European Communities
Environmental Objectives (Surface Water) Regulations, 2009, (S.I. No. 272 of 2009).

In Mr. Conways letter, which appears to be using your report to him on the points raised in our letter,
he states that The Upper Liffey Report by the ERBD Office and Consultants CDM published in
December 2009 concluded that there was no significant impact on waters arising from the small
urban/village centres of Kilbride, Lacken, Ballyknockan and Valleymount. This makes one wonder
why other villages go to the trouble and expense of collecting and treating their sewage prior to
discharge to water.

Also, it is my recollection that the Upper Liffey Report mentioned above, extended to the Liffey Bridge
at Ballymore Eustace and again it makes one wonder why the fact that the water quality in the Liffey at
Ballymore Eustace Bridge is in breach of European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface
Water) Regulations, 2009, (S.I. No. 272 of 2009) was not highlighted. What is the point of these
Reports if they dont tell us in plain language when Regulations are being broken and in my opinion
this casts doubts in the public mind about the testing carried out by the Mobile Monitoring Unit of the
ERBD.

I would be obliged if you would let the Association know why it fell to the EPA Inspector to highlight
the fact that the water quality in the Liffey at Ballymore Eustace Bridge is in beach of the European
Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Water) Regulations, 2009, (S.I. No. 272 of 2009) for
a number of parameters?

Yours sincerely,

________________________________
Thomas Deegan
Honorary Treasurer

Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association

Broadleas,
Ballymore Eustace,
Co. Kildare.
Ms. Grainne Oglesby, 29th December 2011
Programme Officer,
Environmental Licensing Programme,
EPA Headquarters, P.O. Box 3000
Johnstown Castle Estate,
Co. Wexford.

WWDA Ref. No. D0063 01

Dear Ms. Oglesby,

With reference to the above waste water discharge application, the Association wishes to express our
abhorrence at the Draft Licence issued by the ESB to Wicklow County Council in 1985 in respect of,
what was then, a discharge from the proposed Blessington WWTP.

How could any responsible local authority and semi-state company agree to discharge treated sewage
effluent from a potential population of 6000 people into a small reservoir without a guaranteed
minimum dilution of the effluent? (See paragraph numbered 4 on third page of draft licence).
The population Growth Estimate Target for Blessington (Moderate Growth Town) in the Wicklow
County Development Plan 2010-2016 is 7,500 in the year 2022.

The EPA Inspector tells us in her Report dealing with the Ballymore Eustace WWDL and the River
Liffey immediately downstream of Golden Falls Lake (D0238-01) under the heading Assimilative
Capacity that At the design emission limit value (25 mg/l), there is no assimilative capacity in the
receiving water for BOD based on the quality standards under the European Communities
Environmental Objectives (Surface Water) Regulations, 2009, (S.I. No. 272 of 2009).
Table 3.0 highlights that the 95%ile upstream concentration of BOD (6 mg/l) is already in breach of
S.I. No. 272 of 2009 before consideration of the WWTP discharge contribution.

Also that There is no assimilative capacity in the receiving water for orthophosphate based on the
quality standards under the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Water)
Regulations, 2009, (S.I. No. 272 of 2009).
Tables 3.0 highlights that the 95%ile upstream concentration of orthophosphate (0.203 mg/l) is already
in breach of S.I. No. 272 of 2009 before consideration of the WWTP discharge contribution.

Again, There is no assimilative capacity in the receiving water for ammonia based on the 95%ile
quality standard under the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Water)
Regulations, 2009, (S.I. No. 272 of 2009).
Table 3.0 shows that 95%ile concentration upstream of ammonia (0.99 mg/l) is already in breach of
S.I. No. 272 of 2009 before consideration of the primary discharge contribution.

The discharge from Blessington WWTP should never have been allowed into Golden Falls Lake where
a minimum dilution of the effluent cannot be guaranteed.

Also, how could Wicklow County Council make a financial commitment to construct the necessary
infrastructure for the proposed Blessington WWTP knowing the ESB could terminate the Licence at
only a months notice? (See paragraph numbered 5 on third page of draft licence)

In the absence of any signed agreement between the ESB and Wicklow County Council, the
Association would have to question if any such signed agreement exists.

The Association requests, from an environmental perspective and in the interest of natural justice, that
the Environmental Protection Agency refuse a WWDL to Wicklow County Council to discharge
effluent from Blessington WWTP into Golden Falls Lake where a minimum dilution of the effluent
cannot be guaranteed and that an appropriate time table of withdrawal by Wicklow County Council be
drawn up.

Yours sincerely,
________________________________
Thomas Deegan
Honorary Treasurer

BALLYMORE EUSTACE TROUT AND SALMON ANGLERS ASSOCIATION

Broadleas,
Ballymore Eustace,
Co. Kildare.
29th May 2012
Mr. Bryan Doyle,
Director of Services,
Water and Environmental Services,
Wicklow County Council,
County Buildings,
Wicklow.
Re: Blessington Waste Water Treatment Plant Discharge to Golden Falls Lake.

Dear Mr. Doyle,

Thank you for your letter dated 23rd May 2012 and enclosures.

It is most disappointing when professional people have to resort to personal attacks as their only line of
defence. I have no interest in trying to denigrate Wicklow County Council. My only concern is for the
water quality of the Liffey at Ballymore Eustace, Co. Kildare downstream of Golden Falls
Lake/Reservoir. As stated in the Eastern River Basin District report titled Programme of Measures
Pilot Study Upper Liffey which you yourself quoted historically, Blessington Waste Water
Treatment Plant has displayed elevated concentrations of nutrients. Also, the EPA has in the past
placed Golden Falls Lake in the Hypertropic Category i.e. a very high level of pollution. So, please get
off you high horse and maybe address you criticisms at the man in the mirror. Monitoring alone never
solved any problems as results have to be assessed and, if necessary, acted upon. I ask that Wicklow
County Council stop acting ostrich like with regard to the Blessington Waste Water Treatment Plant
discharge into Golden Falls Lake and work with the Association in trying to solve a perennial problem
of algae growth destroying the aesthetic and recreational value of the Liffey at Ballymore Eustace.

When granting a WWDL to Kildare County Council for the proposed new WWTP at Ballymore
Eustace, the EPA Inspector in her report dated 2nd February 2011 stated
The results of the assimilative capacity calculations are summarised as follows:

(i) Biochemical Oxygen Demand


At the design emission limit value (25 mg/l), there is no assimilative capacity in the
receiving water for BOD based on the quality standards under the European Communities
Environmental Objectives (Surface Water) Regulations, 2009, (S.I. No. 272 of 2009). Table 3.0
highlights that the 95%ile upstream concentration of BOD (6 mg/l) is already in breach of S.I. No. 272
of2009 before consideration of the WWTP discharge contribution.

However, the calculations in Table 3.0 indicate, for a notionally clean river, at an
emission limit value of 25 mg/l BOD at 2,000 p.e., there would be adequate assimilative capacity in the
receiving water for BOD, based on the 95%ile standard under S.I. 272 of 2009. The contribution from
the primary discharge is only 0.13 mg/l BOD. Therefore, the effluent design standard of 25 mg/l BOD
has been set as the emission limit value from 31 December 2012 in the RL.

(ii) Phosphorus
There is no assimilative capacity in the receiving water for orthophosphate based on the quality
standards under the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Water) Regulations,
2009, (S.I. No. 272 of 2009). Tables 3.0 highlights that the 95%ile upstream concentration of
orthophosphate (0.203 mg/l) is already in breach of S.I. No. 272 of 2009 before consideration of the
WWTP discharge contribution.
For a notionally clean river, at an emission limit value of 1 mg/l at 2,000 p.e., there would be adequate
assimilative capacity in the receiving water for orthophosphate based on the 95%ile standard under S.I.
272 of 2009. The contribution from the primary discharge is very small, 0.005 mg/l orthophosphate.
The RL sets an emission limit value of 2 mg/l for total phosphorus (the effluent design standard) and an
emission limit value of 1 mg/l for orthophosphate from 3 1 December 2012.
Condition 5 of the RL requires the licensee to continually reduce total phosphorus
emissions in the discharge.

(iii) Ammonia
There is no assimilative capacity in the receiving water for ammonia based on the 95%ile quality
standard under the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Water) Regulations,
2009, (S.I. No. 272 of 2009). Table 3.0 shows that 95%ile concentration upstream of ammonia (0.99
mg/l) is already in breach of S.I. No. 272 of 2009 before consideration of the primary discharge
contribution.
For a notionally clean river and an emission limit value of 5 mg/l at 2,000 p.e., there
would be adequate assimilative capacity in the receiving water for ammonia based on the 95%ile
standard under S.I. 272 of 2009. The contribution from the primary discharge is very small, 0.026 mg/l
of ammonia. Accordingly, the RL set an emission limit value of 5 mg/l for ammonia from 31
December 2012 to ensure compliance with S.I. No. 272 of 2009.
Condition 5.1 of the RL requires the licensee to continually reduce ammonia emissions

Table 3.0 above highlights that other measures need to be put in place to reduce high
background concentrations of BOD, orthophosphate and ammonia in the receiving waters upstream of
the WWTP if the River Liffey is to achieve good stutus under the Water Framework Directive. It is not
the role of the Wastewater Discharge Licence to address these other pollutant sources, it can only
address the waste water discharges.

I am aware that the above is based on background water quality data from January 2007 to February
2009 and that the Blessington WWTP was upgraded in 2007.

Because the problem shows up in County Kildare, maybe Wicklow County Council feels it doesnt
have to address these other pollutant sources, but the Association has no intention of letting matters
rest until the Liffey at Ballymore Eustace is as near as is possible to pollution free.
Looking at the monitoring results for Golden Falls Lake one thing sticks out like a sore thumb. There
could be up to a tenfold increase in the ammonia concentration in Golden Falls Lake and the
downstream samples in spring each year which coincides with the algae growth in the River Liffey.

Perhaps you can use your chemical knowledge and technical approach to convince me that this cannot
be attributed to Blessington WWTP discharge into Golden Falls Lake and that it is merely a
coincidence that it coincides with the algae growth in the River Liffey at Ballymore Eustace each year.
Even better, maybe something can be done to reduce the ammonia concentrations in the Golden Falls
Lake.

My understanding is that for ammonia the EQS for Surface Waters is 0.02 mg/l. The limit for the non-
ionised form of ammonia under the Freshwater Fish Directive is 0.025 mg/l while the limit for non-
ionised ammonia under the Salmonid Waters Regulations is 0.02 mg/l.

I include below a graph of the ammonia results from Golden Falls to illustrate and highlight the
situation.

Yours sincerely,

_______________________________
Thomas Deegan
Honorary Treasurer
Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association

Broadleas,
Administration, Ballymore Eustace,
Environmental Licensing Programme, Co. Kildare.
Office of Climate, Licensing & Resource Use, 30th May 2012
Environmental Protection Agency,
Headquarters,
P.O. Box 3000,
Johnstown Castle Estate.
Co. Wexford.

Waste Waster Discharge Licence Application Register No: D0063-01

Dear Sir/Madam,

The above Association recently received a copy of the monitoring results of Golden Falls Lake from
Wicklow County Council for the period February 2011 March 2012. It is obvious from the results
that there is an increase in the concentration of ammonia in the Golden Falls Lake and downstream
samples in the Spring of the year which coincides with the perennial problem of algae growth in the
Liffey.

I have included a graph (with notes) to illustrate the occurrence.

The above Association respectfully requests the EPA to take this into account when processing the
above Waste Water Discharge Licence Application.

Yours sincerely,

_____________________________
Thomas Deegan
Honorary Treasurer

Graph did not copy.


Graph for illustration purposes only as graph will only accept definite figures (not <0.03 mg/l)
All ammonia monitoring results recorded as <0.03 mg/l have been given a value of 0.02 mg/l
Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association

Broadleas,
Ballymore Eustace,
Co. Kildare.
19th June 2012
Ms. Laura Burke,
Director General EPA
Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters,
P.O. Box 3000,
Johnstown Castle Estate,
Co. Wexford.

Waste Waster Discharge Licence Applications Reg. No: D0063-01 & Reg. No. D0238-01
Agglomerations named Blessington, Co. Wicklow and Ballymore Eustace, Co. Kildare.

Dear Director General,

The EPA has issued Waste Water Discharge Licenses for the agglomerations named Blessington, Co.
Wicklow (Reg. No. D0063-01) and Ballymore Eustace, Co. Kildare (Reg. No. D0238-01). For the
most part, the above Association is well satisfied with the conditions of the licenses and are delighted
that the monitoring data from the Blessington discharge must be presented in graphical format in the
Data Management System.

We are, however, totally and utterly confused by what appears to us to be two conflicting EPA
Inspectors Reports on the water quality in the receiving water of the Liffey at Ballymore Eustace.
Blessington WWTP discharges into Golden Falls Lake which is in Ballymore Eustace, Co. Kildare just
upstream of Ballymore Eustace village. We do not agree with the Inspector that the discharge is into a
short section of river between Poulaphouca Reservoir and Golden Falls Lake. This is the first time it
has been described as such and gives a misleading impression of a running river at the point of
discharge. In fact, the water level in Golden Falls Lake/Reservoir must be lowered to the original river
level to reach the point of discharge.
Also, the Inspector has misinterpreted Part 6 of the Schedule to the Liffey Reservoir Act 1936 when he
states Compensation water must be provided from the reservoir to allow some water to continue to
flow in the river downstream. Sufficient water must be let through to maintain the fish and wildlife that
use the river, and the natural vegetation in and around it. This ensures that a suitable constant flow shall
be available in the receiving water to provide the dilution for final effluent discharged at SW001. In a
letter dated 24th March 1986 to Mr. Alan Dukes T.D. Minister for Justice, Mr. Kevin ODonnell,
Dublin Chief Engineer, states Dear Mr. Dukes,
With reference to the query in your letter of 6th instant to the City Manager, the rights and duties of the
Electricity Supply Board and the Corporation are covered by various provisions in the Liffey Reservoir
Act, 1936. The Act guarantees to the Corporation, the absolute right to a draw of 20 million gallons
daily while the level is above a specific minimum level. The Board has an absolute right to use the
water as it pleases while the level is above the specified minimum level, and this would include the
right not to discharge any water if that suited the Boards purposes.
Below the statutory minimum level, the Board may not use the water for generation purposes but may,
at its own discretion discharge up to 1.5m3 of water per second, averaged over the week. There is,
therefore, no statutory minimum flow that must issue from the reservoir.
Mr. ODonnell goes on to say and I agree, that historically the ESB has released 1.5 m3 /sec to the
Liffey when not generating, but they do so at their own discretion. Dublin City Council now abstract
70 million gallons of water per day from Poulaphouca Reservoir.
The Inspector dealing with the Blessington discharge in section 8, page 7 of his report states under the
heading European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Water) Regulations 2009, S.I. No.
272 of 2009 The water quality downstream of the WWTP shows that the River Liffey complies with
the water quality standards for BOD, ammonia and orthophosphate stipulated in S.I. 272 of 2009. It is
considered that the primary discharge is not adversely impacting the chemical water quality of the
receiving water. This despite the fact that my submission dated 30th May 2012 using Wicklow
County Council monitoring results, shows, in graphical format, the ammonia concentration in Golden
Falls Lake for the month of March 2012 at 0.17 mg/l N i.e. in breach of S.I. 272 of 2009. To allow the
Blessington WWTP discharge to raise the ammonia level in the receiving water by 0.084 mg/l N seems
excessive given that the Ballymore Eustace WWTP will also discharge a short distance downstream of
Golden Falls Lake.
Also, while I agree that the River Liffey is not designated as salmonid waters, the Water Quality
Management Plan for the Liffey Catchment under the heading Water Quality Criteria states 68. In
order to provide a general measure of protection for all beneficial uses, the Plan specifies the water
quality criteria applicable to salmonid fish as the basis for the establishment of water quality
standards.

When granting a WWDL to Kildare County Council for the proposed new WWTP at Ballymore
Eustace, the EPA Inspector in her report dated 2nd February 2011 stated
The results of the assimilative capacity calculations are summarised as follows:
(i) Biochemical Oxygen Demand
At the design emission limit value (25 mg/l), there is no assimilative capacity in the receiving water for
BOD based on the quality standards under the European Communities Environmental Objectives
(Surface Water) Regulations, 2009, (S.I. No. 272 of 2009). Table 3.0 highlights that the 95%ile
upstream concentration of BOD (6 mg/l) is already in breach of S.I. No. 272 of 2009 before
consideration of the WWTP discharge contribution.
However, the calculations in Table 3.0 indicate, for a notionally clean river, at an emission limit value
of 25 mg/l BOD at 2,000 p.e., there would be adequate assimilative capacity in the receiving water for
BOD, based on the 95%ile standard under S.I. 272 of 2009. The contribution from the primary
discharge is only 0.13 mg/l BOD. Therefore, the effluent design standard of 25 mg/l BOD has been set
as the emission limit value from 31 December 2012 in the RL.
(ii) Phosphorus
There is no assimilative capacity in the receiving water for orthophosphate based on the quality
standards under the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Water) Regulations,
2009, (S.I. No. 272 of 2009). Tables 3.0 highlights that the 95%ile upstream concentration of
orthophosphate (0.203 mg/l) is already in breach of S.I. No. 272 of 2009 before consideration of the
WWTP discharge contribution.
For a notionally clean river, at an emission limit value of 1 mg/l at 2,000 p.e., there would be adequate
assimilative capacity in the receiving water for orthophosphate based on the 95%ile standard under S.I.
272 of 2009. The contribution from the primary discharge is very small, 0.005 mg/l orthophosphate.
The RL sets an emission limit value of 2 mg/l for total phosphorus (the effluent design standard) and an
emission limit value of 1 mg/l for orthophosphate from 3 1 December 2012.
Condition 5 of the RL requires the licensee to continually reduce total phosphorus emissions in the
discharge.
(iii) Ammonia
There is no assimilative capacity in the receiving water for ammonia based on the 95%ile quality
standard under the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Water) Regulations,
2009, (S.I. No. 272 of 2009). Table 3.0 shows that 95%ile concentration upstream of ammonia (0.99
mg/l) is already in breach of S.I. No. 272 of 2009 before consideration of the primary discharge
contribution.
For a notionally clean river and an emission limit value of 5 mg/l at 2,000 p.e., there would be adequate
assimilative capacity in the receiving water for ammonia based on the 95%ile standard under S.I. 272
of 2009. The contribution from the primary discharge is very small, 0.026 mg/l of ammonia.
Accordingly, the RL set an emission limit value of 5 mg/l for ammonia from 31 December 2012 to
ensure compliance with S.I. No. 272 of 2009.
Condition 5.1 of the RL requires the licensee to continually reduce ammonia emissions.
Table 3.0 above highlights that other measures need to be put in place to reduce high
background concentrations of BOD, orthophosphate and ammonia in the receiving waters upstream of
the WWTP if the River Liffey is to achieve good status under the Water Framework Directive. It is not
the role of the Wastewater Discharge Licence to address these other pollutant sources, it can only
address the waste water discharges.

Following the granting of the WWDL to Kildare County Council I mentioned in a letter dated 28th
February 2011 to the EPA Office of Climate Change, Licensing and Resource Use that this was a
terrible indictment of all the Authorities operating on the upper Liffey, but the Inspector dealing with
the Blessington WWDA does not even warrant it a mention.
Using the data for ammonia in Table 3.1 of the two Inspectors Reports it appears to me that the EPA
has now licensed two point discharges that will take the ammonia concentration in the upper Liffey at
Ballymore Eustace to a level in breach of S.I. 272 of 2009. (i.e. Background concentration 0.037mg/l,
plus contribution from Blessington WWTP 0.084 mg/l, plus contribution from Ballymore Eustace
WWTP 0.026 mg/l bringing the concentration up to 0.0.147mg/l)
How is the Liffey at Ballymore Eustace to achieve good status by 2021?

I also feel aggrieved that correspondence addressed to me from Wicklow County Council and copied to
the EPA was not put up on the EPA website. As I was not informed by Wicklow County Council that
they were copying the correspondence to the EPA, this would have allowed me to send a copy my
response to the EPA. For what its worth, I have enclosed a copy of my response to Wicklow County
Council dated 29th May 2012.

I respectfully ask that the EPA explain what to me are two conflicting Inspectors Reports on the water
quality of the River Liffey at Ballymore Eustace and reduce the ELV for ammonia in the Blessington
WWTP discharge. There is also a need to correct the misleading information in the Inspectors Report.

Yours sincerely,

_____________________________
Thomas Deegan
Honorary Treasurer

Encl.

Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association

Broadleas,
Ballymore Eustace,
Co. Kildare.
4th July 2012

Administration,
Environmental Licensing Programme,
Office of Climate, Licensing & Resource Use,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Headquarters,
P.O. Box 3000,
Johnstown Castle Estate.
Co. Wexford.

Waste Waster Discharge Licence Application Register No: D0063-01

Dear Sir/Madam,

I feel aggrieved that correspondence dated 23rd May 2012 addressed to me from Wicklow County
Council along with emails which were copied to the EPA were not put up on the EPA website in a
timely fashion. As I was not informed by Wicklow County Council that they were copying the
correspondence to the EPA, this prevented me sending a copy of my response to the EPA in time for it
to be taken into account before the Inspector submitted his report.

For what its now worth, I enclose a copy of my response to Wicklow County Council dated 29th May
2012 which I hope will also be put on the website.

Yours sincerely,
_____________________________
Thomas Deegan
Honorary Treasurer

Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association

Broadleas,
Ballymore Eustace,
Co. Kildare.
3rd September 2012
Mr. Tom OReilly,
Office of Director General
Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters,
P.O. Box 3000,
Johnstown Castle Estate,
Co. Wexford.

Waste Waster Discharge Licence Applications Reg. No: D0063-01 & Reg. No. D0238-01
Agglomerations named Blessington, Co. Wicklow and Ballymore Eustace, Co. Kildare.

Dear Mr. OReilly,

Thank you for your acknowledgement of my letter dated 27th August 2012 and the attached copy of
acknowledgement dated 20th June of my letter dated 19th June 2012.

I dont know what happened but I did not previously receive the acknowledgement dated 20th June
2012.

Thanking you.

Yours sincerely,

_____________________________
Thomas Deegan
Honorary Treasurer

Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association

Broadleas,
Ballymore Eustace,
Co. Kildare.
27th August 2012
Ms. Laura Burke,
Director General EPA
Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters,
P.O. Box 3000,
Johnstown Castle Estate,
Co. Wexford.

Waste Waster Discharge Licence Applications Reg. No: D0063-01 & Reg. No. D0238-01
Agglomerations named Blessington, Co. Wicklow and Ballymore Eustace, Co. Kildare.

Dear Director General,

With reference to my letter dated 19th June 2012 on behalf of the above Association, I am extremely
disappointed that despite the EPAs Customer Charter, no acknowledgement or reply to my letter has
been received. Also, a letter dated 4th July 2012 to Administration, Environmental Licensing
Programme, Office of Climate Change, Licensing and Resource Use, has not been acknowledged or a
reply received.

(Extract from EPA Customer Charter


Service by correspondence:
If you make enquiries by letter, fax or e-mail, we will:
respond to you in your preferred format (e.g. letter, fax, e-mail and telephone) no later than 5
working days from receipt of the enquiry or within 20 working days in the case of an enquiry which is
particularly complex
contact and inform you when you can expect a full reply if we cannot meet these time frames
use clear language as deemed appropriate to the recipient and explain any unfamiliar technical
terms on request
ensure that all our correspondence contains a contact name, telephone number, fax number and e-
mail address
ensure that automated out of the office email replies are updated regularly by staff
if your correspondence relates to a matter that comes within the remit of another public body, we
will endeavour to direct the correspondence to that body and inform you accordingly)

In my letter of the 19th June 2012 to you I mentioned that in dealing with Waste Water Discharge
Applications for the agglomerations named Blessington, Co. Wicklow (Reg. No. D0063-01) and
Ballymore Eustace, Co. Kildare (Reg. No. D0238-01) the EPA issued what appeared to my Association
to be two conflicting EPA Inspectors Reports on the water quality in the receiving water of the Liffey
at Ballymore Eustace. Blessington WWTP discharges into Golden Falls Lake which is in Ballymore
Eustace, Co. Kildare just upstream of Ballymore Eustace village.

Since our letter to you, the Association has now received the following very disturbing explanation for
the two conflicting Inspectors Reports on the water quality in the Liffey at Ballymore Eustace.

The data used by the EPA in the Assimilative Capacity Report referenced by the Anglers Association
was from urban waste water returns (upstream and downstream of Ballymore Eustace Waste Water
Treatment Discharge). It is the Councils understanding that this data was generated from staff in the
local Waste Water Treatment Plant using basic equipment. The Council would feel that this data should
not have been used by the E.P.A. in their report considering that there were existing National
Monitoring Stations upstream and downstream for which reliable data is available. The data from these
stations and the results are far more reliable (see attachment) and compare well with the County
Council data below the Golden Falls dam for the same period. There were a number of outlying results
which caused averages to elevate but the results from 2007-2009 confirmed good physiochemical
status at Ballymore Bridge.

2. The Council notes that the EPA were quoting 95% results (highest 5% of results) in their report and
not average results i.e. extreme rather than normal situation. Even accounting for this the EPA report
figures are multiples of ten times higher than our results for the same period (see comparison of data
attached).

3. The County Council is stating that the complaint would appear to be unfounded based on the
National River Monitoring Data and Wicklow County Council Golden Falls Monitoring Data for the
period 2007-2009 and also based on current data from 2011. The data shows from Golden Falls
monitoring and Kildare National River Monitoring that there is a assimilative capacity for the current
set up at Blessington. The ammonia concentrations are close to the limits and peaks have been
experienced in the early part of this year. With regard to the limit for (un-ionised) ammonia, I wish to
point out the Council does not analyse unionised ammonia. The Council is not required to do so under
the Water Framework Directive. The Council is measuring and quoting the sum of both forms of
ammonia (unionised and ionised) referred to as total ammoniacal nitrogen by the EPA. The limit for
Good Status in the S.I. 272/2009 for total ammoniacal nitrogen are average = 0.065 mg/l N, 95% =
0.14 mg/l N. Statistical data supplied shows the station monitored by Wicklow County Council
downstream of Golden Falls is compliant with this limit as far as 2011 (data attached).

Following the granting of the WWDL to Kildare County Council (Reg. No. D0238-01) for Ballymore
Eustace, I mentioned in a letter dated 28th February 2011 addressed to Administration, EPA Office of
Climate Change, Licensing and Resource Use (copied to the other relevant Authorities) that the
assimilative capacity data quoted in the Inspectors Report was a terrible indictment of all the
Authorities operating on the upper Liffey, but apart from an acknowledgement no reply was received
from the EPA.
Can the EPA now confirm that the data used by the EPA for Assimilative Capacity in the Kildare
County Council Waste Water Discharge Application for the agglomeration named Ballymore Eustace
should not have been used and that this explains the two conflicting EPA Inspectors Reports on water
quality in the Liffey at Ballymore Eustace.

Yours sincerely,

_____________________________
Thomas Deegan
Honorary Treasurer

Environmental Protection Agency


An Ghnionifimreacht um Chaomhnu Comhshaoil
Headquarters, PO Box 3000
Johnstown Castle Estate
County Wexford, Ireland
Thomas Deegan
Honorary Treasurer
Ballmore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association
Broadleas
Ballymore Eustace
Co. Kildare
19 September 2012

Our Ref: Waste Water Discharge Licences D0063-01 Blessington and D0238-01Ballymore Eustace

Dear Mr. Deegan


I refer to your letters dated 19 June 2012 and 27 August 2012, received on 20 June2012 and 28 August
2012 respectively in relation to the Waste Water Discharge
(WWD) licences reference numbers D0238-01, agglomeration named Ballymore Eustace (licensed 17
February 2012) and D0063-01, agglomeration named
Blessington (licensed on 12 June 2012). The Agency notes that both letters wereacknowledged on 20
June 2012 and 31 August 2012 respectively. However, I do apologise for our delay in responding to
your letter of the 19 June 2012. In order toprovide you with a detailed response to your letter it was
necessary to liaise with anumber of people within the Agency. This unfortunately led to the delay
during aparticularly busy period and the customary annual leave period.

The Agency welcomes the statement that Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association
for the most part is well satisfied with the conditions of the
licences, the following will address the confusion caused for your association andwhat appears to you
to be conflicting EPA Inspector Reports.
Prior to the issue of waste water discharge licences, all discharges from waste water treatment plants
(WWTP), including Ballymore Eustace WWTP and Blessington
WWTP, had to comply with the Urban Waste Water (UWWT) Regulations, 2001 (S.I.No. 254 of 2001
and amendments), which transposed the Urban Waste Water Treatment Plant Directive (91/271/EEC).
All agglomerations have been required to submit WWD licence applications to the EPA, in accordance
with the Waste Water Discharge (Authorisation) Regulations 2007, as amended.The population
equivalent (p.e.) of the Ballymore Eustace agglomeration (estimated to be 1,509 in 2008) is below the
2,000 p.e., threshold where emission limit valuesare required under the Urban Waste Water Treatment
Plant Regulation. However,appropriate treatment is required for agglomerations less than 2,000 p.e.,
asspecified in Article 7 of the UWWT Regulations 2001. The term appropriate treatmentis defined in
the UWWT Regulations in terms of the level of treatment necessary toprotect water quality. It is
acknowledged in the Inspectors Report that there iseffectively no treatment of the waste water from
the Ballymore Eustace WWTP.
Therefore, the WWD licence requires that the proposed WWTP be completed by the 31 December
2012 and the emission limit values (BOD of 25 mg/1, ammonia of 5 mg/1and orthophosphate of 1
mg/1) shall apply form 31 December 2012.
The Blessington agglomeration p.e., is greater than 2,000, (estimated current loading of 4,570) and
therefore the emission limits specified for such discharges under the UWWT Regulations apply (i.e.,
BOD 25mg/l, COD 125mg/l and 35mg/l suspended solids).
The WWD licences for the two agglomerations set stricter emission limit values when compared to the
Urban Waste Water Regulations. The more strict limits are set on the basis of the combined
approach(1) which is required under the Waste Water Discharge (Authorisation) Regulations 2007, as
amended. Therefore improvements inthe primary discharges from both agglomerations are required.
The following ten points address the number of concerns raised in your letter:

1. Discharge Point from Blessington Agglomeration


The grid reference for the final effluent discharge point, as submitted by the applicant, puts the point of
discharge in a short (~1.5 km) narrows that links
the Poulaphouca Dam with Golden Falls Lake. The assessment is based on theflow from the
Poulaphouca Dam and Golden Falls Lake. In addition, the Watermaps mapping system on the Water
Framework Directive website(www.wfdireland.ie) sets the boundary of Golden Falls Lake (WFD code:
IE_EA_09_53) as starting approximately 500 metres downstream of the primary discharge point. The
same mapping system identifies the short section of river between the Poulaphouca Reservoir and
Golden Falls Lake as being the lower River Liffey (WFD code IE_EA_09_1870_1).

2. Part 6 of the Schedule to the Liffey Reservoir Act 1936


Part 6 of the Schedule states The Board [ESB] shall at all times (includingtimes at which the level of
the water in the Reservoir is below low water level as hereinafter defined) be at liberty to discharge
water from the Reservoir in such manner as the Board may think fit.. as flow for compensation
(hereinafter referred to as compensation water) as compensation water to the river downstream of the
dam.
In the Inspectors Report, the provisions of the Act are explained as a means of further proving the
ability of the River Liffey to assimilate the discharge.
The Inspectors Report states: The flow of water in the river at SW001 is subject to variability
depending on the factors outlined above however it is anticipated that the flow will not be reduced to a
level to cause any significant concern as the DWF volume through the dam is similar to the 95%ile
flow of 1.53m3/s. This is due to the fact that Part 6 of the Schedule to the Liffey

(1)The Waste Water Discharge Authorisation Regulations 2007 (S.I. No. 684 of 2007), as amended,
specify that a combined approach in relation to licensing of waste water works must be taken,
whereby the emission limits for the discharge are established on the basis of the stricter of either or
both, the limits and controls required under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations (S.I. No.
254 of 2001 and amendments) and the limits determined under statute or Directive for the purpose of
achieving the environmental objectives established for surface waters, groundwater or protected areas
for the water body into which the discharge is made.
Historical EPA monitoring data calculates the 95%ile flow in the river at the hydrometric monitoring
station no. 09032 (approximately 250 m upstream of
the primary discharge point) is 1.53m3/s

3. Water Quality downstream of the Blessington Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) discharge and
the specified ammonia emission limit value

Historical monitoring data submitted by Wicklow County Council in support of their waste water
discharge licence application for the Blessington agglomeration (Reg. No. D0063-01) demonstrates
that the ammonia concentrations in the receiving water (Golden Falls Lake) are in compliance with the
European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Water) Regulations, 2009 (S.I. No. 272 of
2009) (herein referred to as the Surface Water Regulations).
In your letter you refer to a monitoring result for Golden Falls Lake for ammonia (0.17mg/l) in March
2012. One monitoring sample result is not representative of the quality of a waterbody and compliance
with the Surface Water Regulations is not based on just one result, the environmental quality standards
are based on arithmetic mean and 95 percentile of monitoring results. The submission on the
Blessington licence application, dated 30th May 2012, was considered by the Agency prior to the issue
of the WWD licence (page 10 and 11 of the inspectors report).
The WWD licence for the Blessington agglomeration, issued on 12 June 2012, also sets an emission
limit value for ammonia of 5mg/l on the primary discharge which is considered sufficient to contribute
towards continued compliance in the receiving water with the standards set in the Surface Water
Regulations.

4. The Water Quality Management Plan for the Liffey Catchment


The Environmental Quality Standards set in the Surface Water Regulations are the applicable standards
for the River Liffey and for most parameters are more stringent than the European Communities
(Quality of Salmonid Waters) Regulations 1998 (S.I. No. 293 of 1988) which only apply to salmonid
waters.
It should be noted that the River Liffey is not a salmonid water. The Water Quality Management Plan
for the Liffey Catchment was adopted in 1997 and therefore it predates the publication of the Surface
Water Regulations. The emission limit values set in the Blessington licence have been determined with
a view to ensuring compliance with the Surface Water Regulations and the combined approach
specified in the Waste Water Discharge (Authorisation) Regulations.

5. Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association letter dated 28/02/11
A letter, dated 28/02/2011, was received following the granting of the WWD licence for Ballymore
Eustace (Reg. No. D0238-01), which was acknowledged by the EPA in a letter dated 10 May 2011.
This letter is in relation to the Ballymore Eustace WWD licence application and was therefore not
considered as a submission in relation to the Blessington WWD licence application. Therefore, it was
not referred to in the Blessington Inspectors report. The Office of Licencing Research and Resource
Use will assess and provide a detailed response to this letter in due course.
The background concentrations of BOD, orthophosphate and ammoniaupstream of Blessingtons
primary discharge point are compliant with the Surface Water Regulations. The inspectors report for
Blessington states that monitoring results submitted by the applicant have demonstrated that the
quality of the receiving waters in Golden Falls Lake is within the prescribed quality standards set out in
the Surface Water Regulations for BOD, MRP and total ammonia. Golden Falls Lake has been
categorised as being moderate status by the Eastern River Basin District (ERBD). According to the
ERBD River Basin Management Plan, 2009-2015 the reasons for the lake only achieving moderate
status is for excessive chlorophyll production caused by the presence of elevated levels of phosphorous
in the water. According to the ERBD, the presence of elevated phosphorous levels is thought to come
from a combination of agricultural sources and from planning and development.
According to the inspectors report for Blessington the WWTP discharge is not considered to be a
cause of significant deterioration in water quality in Golden
Falls Lake. The Blessington WWD licence sets emission limit values for BOD, orthophosphate and
ammonia which contribute towards compliance with the
Surface Water Regulations.

6. Ammonia concentration in the River Liffey


According to the Blessington inspectors report, Reg, No. D0063-01, the water quality downstream of
the WWTP discharge shows that the River Liffey
complies with the water quality standards for BOD, orthophosphate and ammonia stipulated in the
Surface Water Regulations. The inspectors reportstates that ft is considered that the primary
discharge is not adversely impacting the water quality of the receiving water. The
Blessingtoninspectors report demonstrates that at the point of discharge there issufficient assimilative
capacity in the receiving water for the primary discharge. Therefore an emission limit value of 5 mg/1
for ammonia was set in the WWDlicence to contribute towards compliance with the Surface Water
Regulations.
It is noted that the Ballymore Eustace (Reg. No. D0238-01) primary discharge point is located
approximately 2.6 km downstream of Blessingtons (Reg. No.
D0063-01) primary discharge point. The upstream and downstream monitoring data submitted with the
Ballymore Eustace WWDL application indicates that
the River Liffey at these points does not comply with the Surface Water Regulations. Ambient
monitoring provided as part of Ballymore Eustace WWDL
application indicates that there is no significant difference between the water quality upstream and
downstream for ammonia.
However, it is considered that as a result of the installation of the proposed WWTP (due to be
completed by 31 December 2012) and compliance with the
emission limit value for ammonia of 5mg/l (which applies from 31 December 2012) set in the WWD
licence the increase in concentration of ammonia is
likely to be very small (contribution of 0.026 mg/1 ammonia from the primary discharge). There is also
significant dilution provided in the receiving water at
95 percentile flow rates (approximately 191 dilutions). The above shall contribute towards compliance
with the Surface Water Regulations.
The ERBD River Management Plan 2009 2015 identifies that an upgrade of Ballymore Eustace
WWTP is required if the target date (2021) for good status
is to be achieved. Measures specified in the ERBD Programme of Measures (2009-2015) for the
Liffey Water Management Unit identifies measures to
protect and restore water status by addressing the main pressures such as waste water/industrial
discharges, agriculture, landfill and forestry.

7. Availability on the EPA website of the letter from Wicklow County Council to the Ballymore
Eustace Trout & Salmon Anglers Association.
The letter from Wicklow County Council to Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers
Association dated 23 May 2012, was received by the Agency
on 24 May 2012 and is available to view on the EPA website at the following link:
http://www.epa.ie/licences/lic eDMS/090151b280442449.pdf. The letter was
scanned to the EPA website on 31 May 2012, as per the date stamp on the letter.

8. Misleading information in the Inspectors reports


It should be noted that the inspectors reports are not legal documents and are for information purposes
only. The WWD licence is the legal document
which authorises the discharge of waste water from the waste water works subject to a number of
conditions. It is acknowledged in both reports, that the biological quality of the River LIffey is Q3-4 at
the EPA monitoring station 09L010400 (downstream of Blessingtons WWTP primary discharge point
and upstream of the existing Ballymore Eustace WWTP primary discharge). Both reports state that the
Water Framework Directive status of the River Liffey is moderate and is
required to achieve good status by 2021. Ballymore Eustace primary discharge point is located
approximately 2.6 km downstream of Blessingtons primary discharge point. The upstream and
downstream monitoring data submitted with the application for the Blessington WWDL indicates that
the River Liffey complies with theEnvironmental Objectives (Surface Water) Regulations 2009.
However, the upstream monitoring data (approximately 110m upstream of the primary
discharge point) submitted with the Ballymore Eustace WWDL application indicates that the River
Liffey at this point does not comply with the Environmental Objectives (Surface Water) Regulations
2009.
The licences for Blessington and Ballymore Eustace WWDLs, set emission limit values, with the aim
of contributing towards achieving good water quality
status by 2021. Other measures need to be put in place for the river to achieve good water quality
status, such as the measures specified in theEastern River Basin Management Plan (2009 2015).
There are a number of sources, such as other waste water/industrial discharges, agriculture, landfill and
forestry, which may be contributing to the reduced water quality in theRiver Liffey between upstream
of Blessingtons primary discharge and downstream of Ballymore Eustace primary discharge. It is not
possible for the waste water discharge licences to address these other pollutant sources.
Both the Blessington and Ballymore Eustace WWDLs set emission limit value with the aim of
contributing towards compliance with the Surface Water
Regulations in the River Liffey.
One of the Eastern River Basin District (2009-2015) objectives for the Liffey is to restore the Liffey to
good status by 2021. The Eastern River Basin
Management Plan (2009-2015) (available to download on the Water Framework Directive website:
www.wfdireland.ie) identifies measures to protect and restore water status by addressing the main
pressures (that is sources of pollution or status impact) in the district.

9. Request to reduce the emission limit value set for ammonia in theBlessington WWDL
The Agency considers that the emission limit value set for ammonia (5mg/l) for the Blessington
primary discharge is sufficient to ensure continued compliance
in the receiving water with the standard for ammonia in the Surface Water Regulations.
10.Ballymore Eustace Monitoring data
The application was assessed based on monitoring data provided by Kildare County Council and EPA
monitoring data. The assessment of the application is
described in the inspectors report. The Agency considers that compliance with the requirements of the
waste waterdischarge licences and the implementation of the other measures identified in the Eastern
River Basin Management Plan (2009-2015) should contribute towards improvement of the status of the
River Liffey to Good by 2021. If you have further concerns in relation to the discharges from the
Blessington and Ballymore Eustace WWTPs, please contact the EPAs Office of Environmental
Enforcement, who are responsible for the enforcement of the WWDLs, on 053-9160600.
Yours sincerely,

Frank Clinton-
Programme Manager
Environmental Licensing Programme

Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association

Broadleas,
Ballymore Eustace,
Co. Kildare.
28th September 2012
Mr. Frank Clinton,
Programme Manager,
Environmental Licensing Programme,
EPA Headquarters,
PO Box 3000,
Johnstown Castle Estate,
Co. Wexford.

Ref: Waste Water Discharge Licences D0063-01 Blessington and D0238-01 Ballymore Eustace

Dear Mr. Clinton,

Thank you for your letter dated 19th September 2012 in response to mine dated 19th June 2012 and
27th August 2012 addressed to the Director General EPA.

Again, I must say that I did not receive any acknowledgement to my letter dated 19th June 2012 until it
was enclosed with the acknowledgement to my letter of the 27th August 2012.

Kildare County Council expect to start work on the new Ballymore Eustace pumping station and Waste
Water Treatment Plant shortly, but it remains to be seen if it will be completed by the 31st December
2012 as required by the Waste Water Discharge Licence (D0238-01). However, we look forward to the
new plant replacing the present dilapidated, obnoxious plant that is creating a sewage fungus on one
side of the Liffey downstream of the discharge point at The Strand, Ballymore Eustace. The new plant
will discharge further downstream at Susheen, Ballymore Eustace.

I wish to make the following comments in relation to your ten point reply to our concerns as expressed
in the above mentioned letters.

1. Discharge Point from Blessington Agglomeration.


Wicklow County Council sought permission in 1985 from Kildare County Council to construct an
outfall pressure pipe the intended termini thereof are Blessington in the North and Golden Falls
Lake in the South. in order that they could discharge the effluent from Blessington WWTP into
Golden Falls Lake. In their application for a Waste Water Discharge Licence, Wicklow County
Council states Sewage generated in the Blessington Agglomeration is collected and conveyed to the
Waste Water Treatment Plant at Blessington where it undergoes secondary treatment before being
discharged to the Golden Fall Lake.
Golden Falls Lake was lowered to the original River Liffey level by the ESB to facilitate the laying of
the discharge outlet. To this day Golden Falls Lake must be lowered to the original river level to access
the discharge point.
The Gorge that links Poulaphouca Dam to Golden Falls Lake/Reservoir (i.e. over the old, now
redundant Poulaphouca Waterfall and under Nimmos Bridge) was part of the River Liffey prior to the
Liffey Hydro Electric Scheme of the early 1940s. Today, the only flow in this section is what leaks
through the Poulaphouca Dam and some minor springs. The water feeding Golden Falls Lake now
comes through the Penstocks at Poulaphouca Dam, through Poulaphouca Power Station and then into
Golden Falls Lake. Obviously, local knowledge from Wicklow County Council and others that
Blessington WWTP discharges into Golden Falls Lake wasnt good enough for the Inspector dealing
with the WWDL for Blessington. The fact that someone got it wrong and put the Blessington WWTP
discharge point presumably in the pre Liffey Scheme section of the Liffey and put this information on a
map on a website does not mean that it is correct. Websites are only as good as the information they
are fed. Recently, a map on a website placed Dublin Zoo in Temple Bar and an Airport in Stillorgan
but that didnt make it right. Perhaps the EPA can use its influence to have the discharge point from
Blessington WWTP correctly placed in Golden Falls Lake.

2. Part 6 of the Schedule to the Liffey Reservoir Act 1936


While you quote a section of Part 6 of the Schedule to the Liffey Reservoir Act 1936, you go on then to
quote from the Inspectors Report which misinterprets the Act when it states This is due to the fact
that Part 6 of the Schedule to the Liffey Reservoir Act 1936 requires the ESB to release compensation
water up to 1.5m3/s when the level in Poulaphouca Reservoir is below low water level. The Act does
not require the Board to do any such thing. The Act states that the Board may as it sees fit release
compensation water up to 1.5m3/s. As explained by Mr. Kevin ODonnell Dublin Chief Engineer,
Engineering Services, in a letter dated 24th March 1986 to Mr. Alan Dukes T.D. Minister for Justice,
The Board has an absolute right to use the water as it pleases while the level is above the specified
minimum level, and this would include the right not to discharge any water if that suited the Boards
purposes.
Below the statutory minimum level, the Board may not use the water for generation purposes but may,
at its own discretion discharge up to 1.5m3 of water per second, averaged over the week. There is,
therefore, no statutory minimum flow that must issue from the reservoir. Since the Liffey Reservoir
Act 1936 has never been amended this is still the case even though the powers that be dont want to
admit it and continuously quote 95%ile flows. The flow of the Liffey was closed down completely for
about two and a half hours on the 9th April 2009 when a fault closed down the discharge valve to the
Liffey at Golden Falls Dam/Power Station. This is quite legitimate under Part 6 of the Schedule to the
Liffey Reservoir Act 1936. To their credit, following representation from the Anglers Association, the
ESB agreed to install a fail safe system. (my bold and italics above)

3. Water Quality Downstream of the Blessington Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) discharge and
the specified ammonia limit value
We are very disappointed with how easily the EPA can dismiss what could be the significance of a
monthly sample. As the ammonia graph which we submitted (letter 30th May 2012) shows an increase
in the ammonia concentration from January 2012 to February 2012 and again to March 2012 the
concentration recorded for March may indeed represent the ammonia concentration in Golden Falls for
almost two months (until the next sample was taken in April) or one sixth of the year and should not be
dismissed out of hand even if it is only one sample. We are also disappointed that the WWDL for
Blessington now extends the sampling frequency out to quarterly samples which means that many
events will now be missed.
In our letter dated 19th June 2012 we were expressing our anger and frustration that each year the
Liffey at Ballymore Eustace becomes almost unfishable because of algae growth in the River at the
start of the angling season in March/April. (The algae fouls up the flies used by the anglers.) When we
received the analytical results for Golden Falls from Wicklow County Council for 2011 and early 2012,
it was obvious to us that the ammonia concentration in Golden Falls Lake and the Liffey rose at the
same time as the algae growth appeared. We graphed the results to highlight our concern. We were
hoping that the EPA might apply their expertise to establish if there was a correlation between the two.
Unfortunately for us and the Liffey at Ballymore Eustace the EPA appears to have dismissed it out of
hand because the water quality is in compliance with the Surface Water Regulations, 2009. Even
Wicklow County Council admits that The ammonia concentrations are close to the limits and peaks
have been experienced in the early part of this year.
4. The Water Quality Management Plan for the Liffey Catchment
From about 1985 until it was adopted in 1997 anglers were led to believe that the Water Quality
Management Plan for the Liffey Catchment would solve all our problems. In it we were reliably
informed that even though the Liffey was not a designated salmonid river it would be treated as a
salmonid river with regard to water quality standards. Now we are informed that it was superceded in
2009 by the Surface Water Regulations so the Water Quality Management Plan for the Liffey
Catchment is not now worth the paper its written on. What a waste of time and effort by all who
contributed to the Plan. Will the same faith happen to the Eastern River Basin Management Plan?

5. Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association letter dated 28/02/11
We thank the EPA for the reply dated 25th September 2012 and received on 26th Sept.

6. Ammonia concentration in the River Liffey


See 3. above.

7. Availability on the EPA website of the letter from Wicklow County Council to the Ballymore
Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association
I genuinely did not see this letter on the EPA website prior to the issuing of the Blessington WWDL
even though I was keeping in constant touch with the website at that time. I only noticed it on the
website after my letter dated 19th June 2012 to the Director General.

8. Misleading information in the Inspectors reports


See 1. and 3. above
Also, we do not see how The upstream and downstream monitoring data submitted with the
application for the Blessington WWDL indicates that the River Liffey complies with the
Environmental Objectives (Surface Water) Regulations and that the upstream monitoring data
(approximately 110m upstream of the primary discharge point) submitted with the Ballymore Eustace
WWDL application indicates that the River Liffey at this point does not comply with the
Environmental Objectives (Surface Water) Regulations 2009. There are only a few hundred metres
between Golden Falls Power Station and Ballymore Eustace Liffey Bridge. The only major discharge
into the Liffey between these two points is from Dublin City Councils Water Treatment Plant which to
our knowledge does not contain either phosphates or ammonia and has been investigated by the EPA in
the past. (EPA Office of Environmental Enforcement Site Investigation Report dated 24th July 2006).
Our concern about Dublin City Councils discharge relates to Aluminium, Polyelectrolyte (FLOPAM
4140P supplied by Chemifloc Ltd.) and Suspended Solids.

9. Request to reduce the emission limit value set for ammonia in the Blessington WWDL.
See 3 above.

10. Ballymore Eustace Monitoring Data


We do not feel the reply given adequately explains the difference in water quality expressed in the
Inspectors Report for the Blessington WWDL and the Inspectors Report for the Ballymore Eustace
WWDL. Neither does it answer Wicklow County Councils claim that The data used by the EPA in
the Assimilative Capacity Report referenced by the Anglers Association was from urban waste water
returns (upstream and downstream of Ballymore Eustace Waste Water Treatment Discharge). It is the
Councils understanding that this data was generated from staff in the local Waste Water Treatment
Plant using basic equipment. The Council would feel that this data should not have been used by the
E.P.A. in their report considering that there were existing National Monitoring Stations upstream and
downstream for which reliable data is available. The data from these stations and the results are far
more reliable (see attachment) and compare well with the County Council data below the Golden Falls
dam for the same period. There were a number of outlying results which caused averages to elevate but
the results from 2007-2009 confirmed good physiochemical status at Ballymore Bridge.

As stated previously, the Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association are for the most
part pleased with the provisions of the WWDL for both Ballymore Eustace and Blessington. However,
we are left high and dry as to the cause of the algae growth in the River Liffey in the early part of each
angling season which no one wants to know or do anything about. If it wasnt for the ESB releasing
generation flood waters, the Liffey at Ballymore Eustace would be unfishable and aesthetically
unpleasant.
Yours sincerely,
___________________________
Thomas Deegan
Honorary Treasurer.

http://www.kildare.ie/community/easysiteswp/ballymoreanglers/?page_id=253

Eastern River Basin Management Plan


Eastern River Basin District Management Plan

The Draft Eastern River Basin District Management Plan and Programme of Measures (PoM's) was
launched on the 22nd December 2008. The Draft Plan will be subject to a six month public
consultation period closing on the 22nd June 2009.

The following submission has been sent by Thomas Deegan, Member ERBDAC.

"Submission on the Draft Eastern River Basin District Management Plan

River Basin Management Plan Comments

Project Co-ordinator, ERBD Project Office,

Dublin City Council, 68-70 Marrowbone Lane,

4th Floor, Dublin 8.

I have previously pointed out my concerns about the Liffey Reservoir Act 1936 at the Water Matters
Report 2007 and Working Draft Eastern River Basin District Management Plan stages but these have
been totally ignored.

The Draft Eastern River Basin District Management Plan (ERBDMP) launched on Monday 22nd
December 2008 once again fails to address or even mention problems associated with the Liffey
Reservoir Act 1936. All the costly Programme of Measures proposed for the River Liffey are
absolutely useless as long as the Liffey Reservoir Act 1936 remains in place un-amended. The
problems associated with the Liffey Reservoir Act 1936 should have been addressed when the Water
Quality Management Plan for the River Liffey Catchment was being drawn up by the Eastern Region
Development Organisation (ERDO) but for reasons best known to ERDO they failed to do anything
about them apart from ignoring the existence of the Act. The Draft Eastern River Basin District
Management Plan is now following suit.

There appears to be a sinister attempt to wipe the ESB off the Liffey as they dont get a mention and it
appears from reading the Draft ERBDMP that the Liffey was impounded only for public water supply
and not for hydro electricity generation as well. I dont believe it is a coincidence that in a Report
published in March 1985 by the Eastern Region Development Organisation on the Eastern Region
Settlement Strategy 2011 in Appendix No.10 Sanitary Services we read Dublin Corporation, who
control the works at Ballymore Eustace have plans to develop the source to its ultimate capacity. These
proposals not only allow for significant development of the water treatment facilities at Ballymore
Eustace but also call for Dublin Corporation to take over management of Poulaphuca Lake from the
Electricity Supply Board. Elsewhere it states it is important that Dublin Corporation assume control
of the management of the reservoir. Is the ERBDMP a backdoor attempt to give Dublin City Council
control of the management of Poulaphouca Reservoir by highlighting the water supply aspect and
downgrading hydro electricity generation to the point of trying to wipe the ESB off the Liffey? The
ERBDMP, with regards to the Liffey, is totally biased towards public water supply. The middle Liffey
is dependant on generation floods released by the ESB to survive as a viable fishery and amenity. Also,
future development in County Kildare is also dependant on the constant release of generation flood
water by the ESB to dilute and assimilate the discharges to the Liffey as it flows through the County.
Looking up the Draft Programme of Measures for the Liffey WMU it states:

River Liffey

Reason for designation: Flood Defences

Status: Good Ecological Potential

Measures for Rivers downstream of Reservoirs: Re examine compensation flow from ecological
perspective. Implement a gravel loosening or gravel transportation from behind dams to the river (in
consultation with Regional Fisheries Board and National Parks and Wildlife Service as appropriate.) It
is hard to see how the Status can be described as Good Ecological Potential when raw sewage enters
the River Liffey from Kildare County Councils dilapidated sewage treatment plant at Ballymore
Eustace and Osberstown WWTP also has its problems. A study of the combined effects of three
polluting local authorities discharging into a controlled flow Liffey at Ballymore Eustace should be
undertaken and published.

The compensation flow for the Liffey downstream of the Reservoirs is set by the terms of the Liffey
Reservoir Act 1936, which states in Section 6 of the Schedule to the Act The Board shall at all times
(including times at which the level of water in the Reservoir is below low water level as hereinafter
defined) be at liberty to discharge water from the Reservoir in such a manner as the Board may think fit
at a rate not exceeding 1.5 cubic metres per second averaged over each week from noon on Monday to
noon on the following Monday as flow for compensation (hereinafter referred to as compensation
water) as compensation water to the river downstream of the dam. That is the law of the land as it
stands so there is no need to re-examine but there is a need to amend the Act so that no one or no body
has the right to shut off the flow of the Liffey at Poulaphouca.

What is the point drawing up a Programme of Measures so long as the Liffey Reservoir Act 1936
allows the ESB to reduce the flow of the Liffey at Poulaphouca. Not only can the ESB reduce the flow
of the Liffey, they can even shut off the flow of the Liffey if that suits their purpose. If they were to
reduce the flow, or God forbid, shut off the flow, the Liffey would become little better than a sewer and
all the listed Programme of Measures could do nothing to prevent the pollution of the Liffey and the
extinction of aquatic life and habitat that would result.

Also, under the Liffey Reservoir Act 1936 there is no obligation on the ESB to keep the water level in
Poulaphouca Reservoir above 581 feet O.D. At a water level of 581 feet O.D. Dublin City Council
would not be able to abstract the proposed 70 mgd public water supply from the Reservoir. A level of
only 581 feet O.D. would destroy the Reservoir as an amenity and would also wipe out a number of
habitats but the Draft ERBDMP sees fit to ignore the existence of this legislation.

It also appears to me that any Act that allows any person or body to shut off the flow of any river is
unconstitutional and would certainly start a war in parts of the world. We hear, almost daily, calls for
the ESB to be privatised and this makes an amendment of the Liffey Reservoir Act 1936 more urgent
than ever.

To undertake gravel loosening or any other work on the River Liffey or behind the Dams without
consulting the ESB would be totally irresponsible from a health and safety perspective but once again
the ESB does not get a mention.

I am also concerned at the treatment of Golden Falls Lake in the Draft ERBDMP. One minute you see
it and the next minute its gone. It appeared in the ERBDMP Working Document issued to Advisory
Council Members and the initial Draft. I mentioned in a submission on the Working Document that
Golden Falls was a buffer lake to control the huge water flows that emit from Poulaphouca Hydro
Power Station (30MW) when that Station is on full load. The water is then released into the River
Liffey at a much reduced flow through Golden Falls Hydro Power Station (4MW). When I mentioned
that there was no public water supply taken from Golden Falls Lake it appears to have vanished from
the Draft ERBDMP and helps to confirm my view that there is an attempt to wipe the ESB and Hydro
Electricity Generation off the Liffey. There are a number of discharges directly into Golden Falls Lake.
The most notable discharge is from Wicklow County Councils Blessington Waste Water Treatment
Plant (P.E. 10,000). Due to operating conditions on Golden Falls Lake it is most unsuitable for a
discharge of this nature and in the year 2000 the EPA reported that Golden Falls Lake was Hypertropic
i.e. a very high level of pollution. Yet the Draft Programme of Measure for the Liffey WMU has this to
say:

Golden Falls

Reason for designation: Impoundment for drinking water supply.

Status: Less than Good

Measures: None Identified

As stated above, Golden Falls was not impounded for a drinking water supply but there is still a need to
ensure that the discharge from Blessington WWTP does not pollute the Lake. It was reported when the
level of Golden Falls was lowered in 2002 that a twenty feet high sewage sludge bank has built up at
the Blessington Sewage Treatment Plant discharge location with lesser build-ups downstream. The
Programme of Measures should include Wicklow County Council having to investigate and if
necessary, clean up the sludge.

Full tertiary treatment, nutrient removal and extensive monitoring arrangements are a must for
Blessington WWTP and an alternative location for the discharge should be found. Further, Wicklow
County Council should be barred from allowing further discharges into Golden Falls Lake. Trusting
that this time my submission will not be ignored.

__________________________

Thomas Deegan,

Member ERBDAC

Broadleas,

Ballymore Eustace,

Co. Kildare.

12th February 2009

Copy to; Mr. Padraig McManus, Chief Executive, ESB

Mr. Michael Malone, Manager, Kildare County Council

Mr. Eddie Sheehy, Manager, Wicklow County Council

Mr. Pat Doherty, CEO, Eastern Regional Fisheries Board

Mr. Gary Bolger, Hon. Sec. Ballymore Eustace TSAA

Mr. Denis Madden, Hon. Sec. Clane TSAA

Cllr. Michael Deely, Hon. Sec. North Kildare TSAA

Cllr. Billy Hillis KCC

It is important that all angling clubs and/or anglers study the Draft Plan and make submissions. Details
of the Programme Of Measures for your Local Area e.g. Liffey, Ryewater, Boyne, Blackwater Upper,
Blackwater Lower, Dodder, Nanny etc are described under the various Water Managements Units For
more information on the Eastern River Basin District and the Draft Management Plan and various other
documents go to Links and then click on Eastern River Basin District.
http://www.kildare.ie/community/easysiteswp/ballymoreanglers/?page_id=33
7

Irish Water Sludge Treatment Plant


New Sludge Treatment Plant, Dublin City Council

An Bord Pleanala were due to make a decision on our appeal against the decision
of Kildare County Council granting planning permission to Dublin City Council
for the construction of a new Sludge Treatment Plant at Bishopsland, Ballymore
Eustace, Co. Kildare in November 2008 and this decision was put back until the
5th January 2009.

However in a surprise move, An Bord Pleanala by letter dated 19th January 2009
have requested Dublin City Council to submit the following information. "The
Board has examined the appeal and is of the opinion that certain information is
necessary for the purpose of enabling it to determine the appeal.

The Board considered that further, more detailed and comprehensive,


information is required in respect of the physico-chemistry nature of the current
process wastewater stream and, on completion of the proposed sludge treatment
plant, in respect of any anticipated changes in the composition of the wastewater
stream...

(a) entering the wastewater management plant, and (b) prior to discharge to the
River Liffey.

In accordance with section 132 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and
having regard to article 73 of the Planning and development Regulations
2001you are required to submit, on or before 2nd March, 2009, the following
information:

1. Submit a comprehensive report of water quality monitoring activities,


including sample records, in relation to the composition of the current
wastewater stream and of the receiving water after final discharge. 2. Although
the Board recognizes the functional advantages of the proposed siting of the new
facility beside the existing sludge treatment plant, it considers that an
alternative, more satisfactory location might be available within the substantial
landholding of the applicant at this location.

In addressing this matter you are requested to examine possible alterative site
locations and to provide a detailed evaluation of the alternatives considered, the
submission should be accompanied by relevant site plans, section drawings and
photomontages.

Also by letter dated 19th January 2009 An Bord Pleanala have invited the Trout
and Salmon Anglers' Association to make a submission or observation on the
following:

"The Board proposes to take into account the following:

1. The Board noted that the proposed development is situated outside the
existing treatment plant boundaries and at an elevated and visually prominent
location within the River Liffey Valley. Having regard to the visual character and
scenic/recreational value of this open, rural landscape the Board considered that
the proposed structure and site boundary fencing, by reason of scale bulk,
materials and design, would be visually obtrusive and incongruous in the
landscape and thereby, might seriously injure the visual and recreational
amenities of the area, particularly in views from the Golden Falls Reservoir and
lands further to the south.

2 Furthermore, and having particular regard to the proximity of the site to a


substantial bowl barrow archaeological feature - Recorded Monument
(KD029:051) - the Board considered mat me proposed development might be
unduly close to the monument and interfere with its setting and, thereby, detract
from the archaeological interest of the area. The proposed development might,
therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of
the area.

In accordance with section 137 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 you
are invited to submit any submission or observation that you may have in
relation to the matters raised on or before 16th February, 2009. Any submission
or observation you make should be confined to the issues specified above as the
Board cannot consider comments that are outside the scope of the matter(s) in
question. Your submission in response to this notice must be received by the
Board not later than 5.30 p.m. on the date specified above."

The Association has responded by letter dated 7th February as follows: "Thank
you for your correspondence dated 19th January 2009.

On behalf of the above Association I wish to make the following submission. With
regard to item No. 1 in your correspondence, the above Association is in
agreement with the view expressed and that The proposed development is
situated outside the existing treatment plant boundaries and at an elevated and
visually prominent location within the River Liffey Valley. In fact the proposed
development is on the summit of the hill overlooking Golden Falls and can be
clearly seen from Golden Falls Reservoir and from as far away as the Hollywood
hills.

We believe that the proposed development would be visually obtrusive and


would injure the visual and recreational amenities of Golden Falls Reservoir. The
proposed development would stand out like a sore thumb as viewed from
Golden Falls Reservoir.

With regard to item No. 2 in your correspondence we are of the opinion that a
safety first or precautionary principle approach must be adopted. If there is
any chance of interfering with the setting of the bowl barrow archaeological
feature (Recorded Monument KD 029:051) then an alternative location for the
proposed development must be found."

We were very surprised to received further correspondence dated 24th


February from An Bord Pleanala along with a copy of queries received by An
Bord on the 28th January 2009 from Dublin City Council's Consultants plus a
copy of the statutory notice issued by An Bord Pleanala with An Bord's
responses to the queries dated 24th February 2009.

The Association on the 16th March 2009 made a submission and observation on
this correspondence with photographs of the views of the proposed site from
five locations south of the site and including a flow diagram of the present Sludge
Treatment Plant.

An Bord Pleanala granted the following planning permission with conditions


dated 28th August 2009.

"AN BORD PLEANALA

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACTS 2000 TO 2007

Kildare County

Planning Register Reference Number: 08/520

An Bord Pleanla Reference Number: PL 09.229575 APPEAL by Ballymore


Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association of Barrack Street, Ballymore
Eustace, County Kildare and by The Eastern Regional Fisheries Board of 15a
Main Street, Blackrock, County Dublin against the decision made on the 21st day
of May, 2008 by Kildare County Council to grant subject to conditions a
permission to Dublin City Council care of Colum McGaughey of Room 412, Floor
4, 68-70 Marrowbone Lane, Dublin in accordance with plans and particulars
lodged with the said Council.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: The construction of a new sludge treatment plant
comprising one number sludge treatment building, three number thickened
sludge storage tanks, one number dried sludge storage silo and associated site
infrastructure at Ballymore Eustace Water Treatment Plant, Bishopsland,
Ballymore Eustace, County Kildare.

DECISION

GRANT permission for the above proposed development in accordance with the
said plans and particulars based on the reasons and considerations under and
subject to the conditions set out below.

MATTERS CONSIDERED

In making its decision, the Board had regard to those matters to which, by virtue
of the Planning and Development Acts and Regulations made thereunder, it was
required to have regard. Such matters included any submissions and
observations received by it in accordance with statutory provisions.

REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

Having regard to:

(a) the provisions of the Strategic Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin
Area and the objectives of the planning authority, as set out in the current
Kildare County Development Plan, which seek to facilitate the upgrading of the
water supply infrastructure within the county and the region,

(b) the close proximity of associated infrastructural facilities within the


adjoining water treatment plant, and

(c) the proposed measures for the treatment and discharge of water to the River
Liffey it is considered that the proposed development would contribute to the
provision of an enhanced public water supply for the region and, subject to
compliance with the conditions set out below, would be acceptable in terms of its
impacts on the visual amenities and archaeological interest of the area and on
the water quality of the River Liffey and would, therefore, be in accordance with
the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

CONDITIONS

1. The layout and design of the proposed development shall be modified as


follows:

(a) The proposed fenceline along the south-east boundary of the site
(approximate length -55 metres) shall be relocated in a north-westerly direction
and shall be aligned so that it does not encroach on the line of the existing
ditch/bank which terminates at the bowl barrow recorded monument.
(b) The layout of the south-east corner of the proposed sludge treatment
building shall be redesigned to ensure that no part of the building lies within five
metres of the re-aligned fenceline. The location/footprint of the western
perimeter of the redesigned building shall not extend beyond that indicated on
the Site Layout Plan (Drawing Number PL022-Revision P01) which was received
by An Bord Pleanla on the 19th day of March, 2009. Detailed drawings (to a
scale of not less than 1:200) indicating the proposed method of compliance with
these requirements shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the
planning authority prior to the commencement of development.

Reason: In order to protect existing natural features within the site and the
visual amenities of the area.

2. Prior to commencement of construction, details of the materials, colours and


textures of all the external finishes shall be submitted to and agreed in writing
with the planning authority. The colour of the elevations may not be altered at
any time without the prior written agreement of the planning authority.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and the protection of the rural character
of the area.

3. Water supply and drainage arrangements, including the disposal of surface


water, shall comply with the requirements of the planning authority for such
works and services.

Reason: In the interest of public health and to ensure a proper standard of


development.

4. Construction works at the site shall be carried out in accordance with the
Requirements for the Protection of Fisheries Habitat during Construction
Works at Rivers Sites (available at www.fishingireland.net). Reason: In order to
protect the watercourse from pollution and in the interest of the proper planning
and sustainable development of the area.

5. Pre-development testing shall consist of the following:

(1) The developer shall engage the services of a suitably qualified archaeologist
(licensed under the National Monuments Acts 19301994) to carry out pre-
development testing at the site. No sub-surface work shall be undertaken in the
absence of the archaeologist without his/her express consent.

(2) The archaeologist shall notify the National Monuments Service of the
Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in writing at
least four weeks prior to the commencement of site preparations. This will allow
the archaeologist sufficient time to obtain a licence to carry out the work.

(3) The archaeologist shall carry out any relevant documentary research and
may excavate test trenches at locations chosen by the archaeologist, having
consulted the proposed development plans.
(4) Having completed the work, the archaeologist shall submit a written report
to the planning authority and to the National Monuments Service for
consideration.

(5) Where archaeological material is shown to be present, preservation in situ,


preservation by record (excavation) and/or monitoring may be required and the
National Monuments Service will advise the developer with regard to these
matters.

(6) No site preparation or construction work shall be carried out until after the
archaeologists report has been submitted and permission to proceed has been
received in writing from the planning authority in consultation with the National
Monuments Service.

Reason: To ensure the continued preservation (either in situ or by record) of


features or other objects of archaeological interest which may lie within the site.

6. The site shall be landscaped in accordance with a tree survey and landscaping
scheme which shall be submitted to the planning authority for agreement before
development commences. This scheme shall include:

(a) A plan to scale of not less than 1:500 showing

(i) the trees to be removed and those to be retained, indicating species, heights,
crown spread and condition,

(ii) the species, setting and height of all new planting which shall provide for
deciduous trees within the site boundary fence and additional deciduous trees
along the line of the existing ditch/bank which lies to the south-east of the
realigned site boundary.

(iii) proposals for levelling, mounding and surface treatment of external areas
including hard surfaced areas.

(iv) landscape management plan to include details of the measures to protect


existing trees and shrubs during the construction phase; and

(v) a timescale for the implementation of this scheme.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.

7. The proposed overground oil storage tank shall be adequately bunded to


protect against spillage. Bunding shall be impermeable and capable of retaining a
volume equal to 1.5 times the capacity of the tank. Filling and take off points shall
be located within the bunded area.

Reason: In the interest of public health and safety.


8. (a) Comprehensive monitoring arrangements relating to the volume and
quality of the treated filtrate and supernatant wastewater discharges to the
River Liffey shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the planning
authority prior to the commencement of development. In this regard, the process
wastewater shall be treated to ensure compliance with the parameter limits
which shall be specified by the planning authority having regard to the River
Liffey Catchment Management Plan under the Water Framework Directive.

(b) The agreed monitoring regime shall provide for sampling, at regular,
specified, intervals of the following:

(i) Supernatant from the sludge thickening tanks.

(ii) Spillway contents, including the combined filtrate, supernatant, washwater


and surface water from the plant, prior to discharge.

(iii) Water in the Golden Falls Reservoir, upstream of the spillway discharge
from the plant.

(iv) Water in the River Liffey, downstream of the spillway discharge from the
plant.

(c) The physico/chemical parameters to be monitored shall include the


following: Colour, Turbidity, Aluminium, Suspended Solids and PH.

(d) The data generated from this sampling/monitoring regime shall be


forwarded to the planning authority at regular, specified, intervals and shall be
made available for public inspection.

Reason: In order to protect the quality of the water in the River Liffey in the
interest of public health and recreational amenity, including angling.

9. The developer shall pay to the planning authority a financial contribution in


respect of public infrastructure and facilities benefiting development in the area
of the planning authority that is provided or intended to be provided by or on
behalf of the authority in accordance with the terms of the Development
Contribution Scheme made under section 48 of the Planning and Development
Act 2000. The contribution shall be paid prior to the commencement of
development or in such phased payments as the planning authority may
facilitate and shall be subject to any applicable indexation provisions of the
Scheme at the time of payment. Details of the application of the terms of the
Scheme shall be agreed between the planning authority and the developer or, in
default of such agreement, the matter shall be referred to the Board to determine
the proper application of the terms of the Scheme.

Reason: It is a requirement of the Planning and Development Act 2000 that a


condition requiring a contribution in accordance with the Development
Contribution Scheme made under section 48 of the Act be applied to the
permission.
Member of An Bord Pleanla Margaret Byrne duly authorised to authenticate the
seal of the Board.

Dated this 28th day of August 2009.

The Association is delighted with An Bord Pleanala's permission and looks


forward to seeing the comprehensive monitoring arrangements which must be
put in place.

The Association wrote to the Director of Services Kildare County Council asking
that we be given an input into the monitoring arrangements that must now be
drawn up and the Director replied inter alia by letter dated 16th September
2009 " Please be assured that they will be in contact with relevant officials from
Dublin City Council in order to have an input into the plans and proposals
relating to monitoring arrangements as envisaged in the parent planning
permission. I am also pleased to advise that Mr. Holligan will liase directly with
you in this regard."

The new Sludge Treatment Plant story to date. The Association by letter dated
20th April 2008 made a submission to Kildare County Council on Dublin City
Councils planning application (Ref. No. 08520) to construct a new alum sludge
treatment plant at the Waterworks, Bishopsland, Ballymore Eustace.

Extract "We know that the present alum sludge treatment plant is capable of
producing an effluent with an Al3+ concentration of 1.92 mg/l and we were
promised that the new plant would be an improvement on the present plant. The
Association requests Kildare County Council to specify a maximum Al3+
concentration in the alum sludge treatment plant effluent that will ensure the
quality of the water in the Liffey complies with the Environmental Quality
Standard of 0.2 mg/l Al3+. Also, that the Council specifies where and how often
the Liffey at Ballymore Eustace is sampled and analysed for total aluminium. We
also request Kildare County Council to put in place monitoring arrangements to
ensure that the planning conditions are observed."

Kildare County Council granted planning permission for the new sludge
treatment plant with out any conditions as to the quantity or quality of the
discharge from the sludge treatment process The Association appealed the
decision of Kildare County Council to An Bord Pleanala by letter dated 9th June
2008.

Extract "On behalf of the above Association I wish to Appeal the decision of
Kildare County Council (Ref. No. 08/520) to grant planning permission with
conditions to Dublin City Council for the construction of a new sludge treatment
plant comprising 1 no. sludge treatment building, 3 no. thickened sludge storage
tanks, 1 no. dried sludge storage silo and associated site infrastructure, at the
Water Treatment Plant, Bishopsland, Ballymore Eustace. The Associations
appeal is based on the grounds that the permission granted reduces the
protection against pollution of the Liffey afforded by the planning permission
that currently exists for the present alum sludge treatment plant and also some
of the planning permission conditions imposed by Kildare County Council need
clarification." The Eastern Regional Fisheries Board also appealed Kildare
County Council's decision.

The Association dated 30th July 2008, at the request of An Bord Pleanala,
responded to Dublin City Council's submission to An Bord Pleanala concerning
our appeal.

Extract "The Association respectfully requests An Bord Pleanala to take account


of our concerns and comments when considering this appeal and to impose
conditions and monitoring arrangements on the proposed new sludge treatment
plant process to ensure that the Liffey at Ballymore Eustace is never again
polluted by aluminium hydroxide sludge."

The Association received a latter dated 14th October 2008 stating that An Bord
intended to determine the appeal before the 25th November 2008 but we
received another letter dated 25th November from An Bord stating that due to
the high volume of appeals a new target date of the 5th January had been set.

The Association received correspondence dated 19th January 2009 from An


Bord Pleanala expressing some concern at the proposed location of the new
Sludge Plant. We also received a copy of correspondence also dated 19th January
which An Bord had sent to Dublin City Council looking for a physio- chemical
analysis of the effluent from the propsed new Sludge Treatment Plant. The
Association replied with a submission dated 7th February 2009.

We were very surprised to received further correspondence dated 24th


February from An Bord Pleanala along with a copy of queries received by An
Bord on the 28th January 2009 from Dublin City Council's Consultants plus a
copy of the statutory notice issued by An Bord Pleanala with An Bord's
responses to the queries dated 24th February 2009.

The Association on the 16th March 2009 made a submission and observation on
this correspondence with photographs of the views of the proposed site from
five locations south of the site and including a flow diagram of the present Sludge
Treatment Plant.

An Bord Pleanala invited further submission/observations and the Association


replied as follows

"Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association Barrack Street,

Ballymore Eustace,

Co. Kildare.

The Secretary, 25th June 2009


An Bord Pleanala,

64 Marlborough Street,

Dublin 1.

Appeal Re: New Sludge Treatment Plant,

Bishopsland, Ballymore Eustace, Co. Kildare.

Ref. No. PL 09.229575 P.A. Ref. No. 08/520

Dear Sir/Madam,

On behalf of the above Association I wish to make the following


submission/observation on the submissions received by An Bord Pleanala on the
19th March 2009 and the 31st March 2009 from Dublin City Council and on the
4th February 2009 from Kildare County Council, which were forwarded to the
above Association.

The Association will address the submissions in the sequence received by An


Bord Pleanala.

The submission from Kildare County Council received on the 4th February 2009
will be included as part of addressing the Dublin City Council submissions. The
Association cannot agree with the statement in the 2nd last paragraph of page
two of the submission dated 19th March 2009 from Dublin City Council that
Apart from the operational advantages, minimising the visual impact of the
building was of primary concern in determining the proposed development
location.

The view Fig1a, attached to the Archaeological Report (Appendix D) shows how
exposed the proposed site is as viewed from a southerly direction. The statement
in the second last paragraph of page two of Dublin City Councils submission
dated and received 19th March 2009 Of the options available (refer to Drawing
No. PL021 in Appendix A), the proposed location was the only option that
offered the advantage of partial screening on all aspects and this is particularly
so to the South, Southwest and Southeast. is patently not true.

Dublin City Council has compromised the views across the Liffey from the West
by their Phase 3 Development and are now proposing to destroy the views from
the South. It is interesting to note the difference in the photomontages of the
proposed site and those of the sites that were excluded. In Appendix B
Photomontages, the proposed new Sludge Treatment Plant is shown by the
dimensions 16 x 4 mm as taken from the Water Ski Clubhouse at the edge of
Golden Falls Lake while the dimensions of the Sludge Treatment Plant are shown
as 52 x 15 mm in Appendix D Site No. 2 Photomontage in the submission dated
26th March 2009 i.e. three times the size even though it is taken from the R 413
road at Mountcashel, probably three times the distance away from the site of the
previous photomontage. We are very concerned to read in the last paragraph of
page two of the submission dated 19th March 2009 that excavations (of up to 8
metres) are to be carried out in this archaeological sensitive area close to the
Bowl Barrow, a recorded monument (Ref KD 029:051). Dublin City Council has
already compromised two other recorded monuments (Ref KD029:012 and KD
029;039) in this area and must not be allowed compromise a third. Again we
stress that the Precautionary Principle must apply.

We are horrified after reading the following on page two of Margaret Gowen &
Co. Ltd. Archaeological Consultants & Project Managers Report (Appendix D)
that Dublin City Council are still even contemplating going ahead with this
proposed location for the New Sludge Treatment Plant. Geophysical survey
carried out in the proposed development area has identified subsurface
archaeological features thought to be indicative of multi-phase occupational
activity, these will require licenced archaeological investigation prior to
development, the results of which will be submitted to the Department of the
Environment, Heritage and Local Government who will decide on further
mitigation measures necessary. One would have thought that that was the end
of the matter and that a new location would be urgently sought and found.

The Association believes that Dublin City Council has not made a good enough
case why Site No. 2 (Drg. No. PL021) inside the existing boundary fence and
adjacent to the present Sludge Treatment Plant was excluded. The submission
dated 26th March 2009 gives some reasons why Site No. 2 was rejected.

As can be seen from Drawing No. PL021 (Appendix A Submission dated 19th
March 2009) the proposed Sludge Treatment Plant occupies only a small area of
the red coloured Site No. 2. Very little of the existing coniferous woodland would
need to be removed and this must be weighed up against the possibility of
compromising the Bowl Barrow Archaeological Site (Recorded Monument Ref.
KD 029:051) which can never be replaced. The views from the West and North
West are already compromised by the Phase 3 and previous developments and
many residences have screened off the view of the Waterworks site by planting
in their own gardens. The area to the West of the Waterworks sloping towards
the Liffey is contaminated by aluminium hydroxide sludge in the old Sludge
Lagoons and in the woodland adjacent to the Liffey. Apart from the coniferous
trees in the immediate area of the new Sludge Plant on Site No. 2, most of the
natural habitat is closer to the Liffey and there is no need to disturb it unless to
remove the aluminium hydroxide contamination. The amount of trees that would
need removing to facilitate the new Sludge Treatment Plant would be
insignificant with regard to the presence of the large number of deer in this area
and the trees could be replaced by planting adjacent to the new Sludge Plant.
Dublin City Council could also replace the trees killed by the alum sludge closer
to the Liffey.

We do not know how Dublin City Council arrived at a figure of 1.0M to prepare
this site for the Sludge Treatment Plant but whatever the figure it must be set
against the further mitigation measures necessary following the licenced
archaeological investigation of the other site. Dublin City Council is presently
exporting thousands of tonnes of soil from the Phase 3 Development to landfill
and some or all of this could be used as backfill material. The Association
believes that with a bit of engineering ingenuity the new Sludge Treatment Plant
could be set into the hillside which would render it much less conspicuous from
the West. The existing boundary hedging, woodland and hillside ridge would
conceal the Sludge Plant from the South. Visiting this site on 21st June 2007
there appeared to be enough woodland immediately west of the Sludge Plant on
Site No. 2 to lessen the impact on the already compromised views from the West.
In fact the new Sludge Treatment Plant might not be visible at all from the West.
The Association believes that Site No. 2 (Drawing No. PL021) for the proposed
new Sludge Treatment Plant offers the better option for concealing the large
structure and will save the views from Golden Falls Lake part of the Blessington
Lakes, designated an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In our view Site No. 2
is by far the lesser of the two evils.

With regard to water quality monitoring, the analyses from any laboratory, even
a laboratory accredited to the international standard ISO 17025, is only as good
as the sampling procedure. The need to clarify the labelling on the samples does
not inspire confidence in the first instance. The Association has in a previous
submission expressed our concern about the sampling location on the Liffey
downstream of the discharge from the Waterworks and how representative is
such a sample. The water level in the Liffey, at the Ball Alley car park where this
sample is taken is only around two inches (5 cm) deep. We believe that the
sample should be taken from the deeper, better flow water at the direct opposite
bank.

In order to calculate the effect of any discharge on a receiving water at least


three parameters must be known i.e. (a) The volume or flow rate of the
discharge, (b) the concentration of the element/substance of interest and (c) the
volume or flow rate of the receiving water. Since the Liffey at Ballymore Eustace
is a controlled flow river we know its flow rate. We can also from chemical
analysis establish the concentration (mg/l) of any element or substance and so if
we know the flow rate of the discharge we can calculate its effect on the
receiving water, the Liffey. Dublin City Council by combining four discharges,
Supernatent from various tanks, Treated Filtrate from the Sludge Treatment
Plant, Surface water from the Water Treatment Plant and Run-off from some
adjacent lands (old sludge holding lagoons) make it impossible to estimate the
flow of the final discharge to the Liffey. These four discharges should all be
monitored individually and separated in the interest of clarity.

The Chemical analyses enclosed with the Dublin City Council submission dated
26th March 2009 does not mention any flow rates and so their impact on the
Liffey cannot be calculated. However the various analyses show good quality
apart from some glitches. The analysis shows that the aluminium concentration
in the Sludge Press Filtrate (21 ug/l) is much lower than the aluminium content
of the Supernatent (954 ug/l) and shows the importance of the Sludge
Treatment Plant. The Quality of the Supernatent is dependant on the amount of
time the solids are allowed to settle and so can be a bit of a hit and miss
depending on operating conditions. The Suspended Solids of both samples is less
than 10 mg/l. However, the planning application for the new Sludge Treatment
Plant informed us that the flow rate from the New Sludge Treatment Plant would
be 94 litres per second made up as follows; 26 litres per second from the New
Sludge Treatment Plant and 68 litres per second from the various Supernatents.
In light of the above analyses why is Dublin City Council seeking planning
permission for a Suspended Solids concentration of 40 mg/l? This is a retrograde
step and as stated in our previous submissions this would add 2.3 tonnes of
solids per week into the Liffey at Ballymore Eustace. If the suspended solids are
made up entirely of aluminium hydroxide this will add 0.77 tonnes of aluminium
into the Liffey per week and raise the background level by 0.8 mg/l over four
times the proposed Environmental Quality Standard of 0.2 mg/l aluminium.

The present 1985 planning permission allows a max. discharge flow of 4120
m3/day (47.7 l/s) and a max. aluminium in the discharge of 10 mg/l. This would
raise the aluminium content by 0.31 mg/l exceeding the EQS by 155%. This was
a reasonable first time attempt condition in its day. However we showed in a
previous submission that the 1985 planning permission is being broken on a
daily basis particularly with regard to the volume discharged. We know that a
previous report by MCOS to the EPA in connection with the old Sludge Holding
Lagoons at the Dublin City Council Waterworks stated Particular attention
should be focussed on arsenic, barium, selenium, manganese and nickel levels
given the preliminary results indicating potential contamination of the wetland
soils and surface water. The Association is anxious to know what weight of
these toxic elements will be present in the 2.3 tonnes of solids (i.e. a
comprehensive analysis of the solids is required) which Dublin City Council
wishes to discharge into the Liffey per week. It is also important to know the
concentration of these elements in the soluble portion of the discharges from the
Sludge Treatment Plant. We still find it incredible that Dublin City Council does
not have these figures to hand given the above MCOS Report and after over sixty
years operating the Waterworks. Hiding behind the fact, as stated in the second
last paragraph of page two of the Dublin City Council submission, that the
monitoring of the full suite of physico-chemical parameters set-out in the EPAs
Water Framework Directive Monitoring Programme, has never been a statutory
requirement on Ballymore Eustace Water Treatment Plant does not create
confidence in Dublin City Council and shows that they will only test for the
minimum required or at least you will only be given the minimum of information
and hence the need to apply conditions. Given the toxic nature of some of these
elements, the Association respectfully suggests that it is imperative that An Bord
Pleanala seeks the full suite of physico-chemical parameters.

The Association is at a loss to understand the logic of the last paragraph on page
3 of the Submission dated 26th March 2009. Are we to believe that the more
sludge the Waterworks produces the better will be the quality of the Future
Wastewater Filtrate?

The Association was surprised and concerned to learn on page 4 that a Phase 4
Development is planned for the Waterworks and that provisions are being made
for this, as part of the Phase 3 Development. We are always concerned that this
will be used in future to obtain planning permission for extensions to the
Waterworks i.e. part of the facilities are already constructed. We are led to
believe that the present Phase 3 will see the capacity of the Waterworks increase
to 318,000 m3/day and that this is the ultimate safe yield from Poulaphouca
Reservoir. It is a condition of a past planning permission by Kildare County
Council that the capacity of the Waterworks cannot exceed 70 million gallons of
water per day.

The Association respectfully requests An Bord Pleanala to impose stringent


quantity and quality conditions on discharges from the proposed new Sludge
Treatment Plant process, to obtain a full suite of the physico-chemical
parameters of both the solid and aqueous portions of the discharges and find a
more suitable site for the proposed Sludge Treatment Plant.

Yours sincerely,

____________________________

An Bord Pleanala granted the following planning permission with conditions


dated 28th August 2009.

"AN BORD PLEANALA

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACTS 2000 TO 2007

Kildare County Planning Register Reference Number: 08/520

An Bord Pleanla Reference Number: PL 09.229575 APPEAL by Ballymore


Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association of Barrack Street, Ballymore
Eustace, County Kildare and by The Eastern Regional Fisheries Board of 15a
Main Street, Blackrock, County Dublin against the decision made on the 21st day
of May, 2008 by Kildare County Council to grant subject to conditions a
permission to Dublin City Council care of Colum McGaughey of Room 412, Floor
4, 68-70 Marrowbone Lane, Dublin in accordance with plans and particulars
lodged with the said Council. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: The construction of a
new sludge treatment plant comprising one number sludge treatment building,
three number thickened sludge storage tanks, one number dried sludge storage
silo and associated site infrastructure at Ballymore Eustace Water Treatment
Plant, Bishopsland, Ballymore Eustace, County Kildare.

DECISION

GRANT permission for the above proposed development in accordance with the
said plans and particulars based on the reasons and considerations under and
subject to the conditions set out below.

MATTERS CONSIDERED

In making its decision, the Board had regard to those matters to which, by virtue
of the Planning and Development Acts and Regulations made thereunder, it was
required to have regard. Such matters included any submissions and
observations received by it in accordance with statutory provisions.

REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

Having regard to:

(a) the provisions of the Strategic Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin
Area and the objectives of the planning authority, as set out in the current
Kildare County Development Plan, which seek to facilitate the upgrading of the
water supply infrastructure within the county and the region,

(b) the close proximity of associated infrastructural facilities within the


adjoining water treatment plant, and

(c) the proposed measures for the treatment and discharge of water to the River
Liffey,

it is considered that the proposed development would contribute to the


provision of an enhanced public water supply for the region and, subject to
compliance with the conditions set out below, would be acceptable in terms of its
impacts on the visual amenities and archaeological interest of the area and on
the water quality of the River Liffey and would, therefore, be in accordance with
the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

CONDITIONS

1. The layout and design of the proposed development shall be modified as


follows:

(a) The proposed fenceline along the south-east boundary of the site
(approximate length -55 metres) shall be relocated in a north-westerly direction
and shall be aligned so that it does not encroach on the line of the existing
ditch/bank which terminates at the bowl barrow recorded monument. (b) The
layout of the south-east corner of the proposed sludge treatment building shall
be redesigned to ensure that no part of the building lies within five metres of the
re-aligned fenceline. The location/footprint of the western perimeter of the
redesigned building shall not extend beyond that indicated on the Site Layout
Plan (Drawing Number PL022-Revision P01) which was received by An Bord
Pleanla on the 19th day of March, 2009. Detailed drawings (to a scale of not less
than 1:200) indicating the proposed method of compliance with these
requirements shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the planning
authority prior to the commencement of development.

Reason: In order to protect existing natural features within the site and the
visual amenities of the area.

2. Prior to commencement of construction, details of the materials, colours and


textures of all the external finishes shall be submitted to and agreed in writing
with the planning authority. The colour of the elevations may not be altered at
any time without the prior written agreement of the planning authority.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and the protection of the rural character
of the area.

3. Water supply and drainage arrangements, including the disposal of surface


water, shall comply with the requirements of the planning authority for such
works and services. Reason: In the interest of public health and to ensure a
proper standard of development.

4. Construction works at the site shall be carried out in accordance with the
Requirements for the Protection of Fisheries Habitat during Construction
Works at Rivers Sites (available at www.fishingireland.net). Reason: In order to
protect the watercourse from pollution and in the interest of the proper planning
and sustainable development of the area.

5. Pre-development testing shall consist of the following:

(1) The developer shall engage the services of a suitably qualified archaeologist
(licensed under the National Monuments Acts 19301994) to carry out pre-
development testing at the site. No sub-surface work shall be undertaken in the
absence of the archaeologist without his/her express consent.

(2) The archaeologist shall notify the National Monuments Service of the
Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in writing at
least four weeks prior to the commencement of site preparations. This will allow
the archaeologist sufficient time to obtain a licence to carry out the work.

(3) The archaeologist shall carry out any relevant documentary research and
may excavate test trenches at locations chosen by the archaeologist, having
consulted the proposed development plans.

(4) Having completed the work, the archaeologist shall submit a written report
to the planning authority and to the National Monuments Service for
consideration.

(5) Where archaeological material is shown to be present, preservation in situ,


preservation by record (excavation) and/or monitoring may be required and the
National Monuments Service will advise the developer with regard to these
matters.

(6) No site preparation or construction work shall be carried out until after the
archaeologists report has been submitted and permission to proceed has been
received in writing from the planning authority in consultation with the National
Monuments Service.

Reason: To ensure the continued preservation (either in situ or by record) of


features or other objects of archaeological interest which may lie within the site.
6. The site shall be landscaped in accordance with a tree survey and landscaping
scheme which shall be submitted to the planning authority for agreement before
development commences. This scheme shall include: (a) A plan to scale of not
less than 1:500 showing

(i) the trees to be removed and those to be retained, indicating species, heights,
crown spread and condition,

(ii) the species, setting and height of all new planting which shall provide for
deciduous trees within the site boundary fence and additional deciduous trees
along the line of the existing ditch/bank which lies to the south-east of the
realigned site boundary.

(iii) proposals for levelling, mounding and surface treatment of external areas
including hard surfaced areas.

(iv) landscape management plan to include details of the measures to protect


existing trees and shrubs during the construction phase; and

(v) a timescale for the implementation of this scheme.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.

7. The proposed overground oil storage tank shall be adequately bunded to


protect against spillage. Bunding shall be impermeable and capable of retaining a
volume equal to 1.5 times the capacity of the tank. Filling and take off points shall
be located within the bunded area.

Reason: In the interest of public health and safety.

8. (a) Comprehensive monitoring arrangements relating to the volume and


quality of the treated filtrate and supernatant wastewater discharges to the
River Liffey shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the planning
authority prior to the commencement of development. In this regard, the process
wastewater shall be treated to ensure compliance with the parameter limits
which shall be specified by the planning authority having regard to the River
Liffey Catchment Management Plan under the Water Framework Directive.

(b) The agreed monitoring regime shall provide for sampling, at regular,
specified, intervals of the following:

(i) Supernatant from the sludge thickening tanks.

(ii) Spillway contents, including the combined filtrate, supernatant, washwater


and surface water from the plant, prior to discharge.

(iii) Water in the Golden Falls Reservoir, upstream of the spillway discharge
from the plant.
(iv) Water in the River Liffey, downstream of the spillway discharge from the
plant.

(c) The physico/chemical parameters to be monitored shall include the


following: Colour, Turbidity, Aluminium, Suspended Solids and PH.

(d) The data generated from this sampling/monitoring regime shall be


forwarded to the planning authority at regular, specified, intervals and shall be
made available for public inspection.

Reason: In order to protect the quality of the water in the River Liffey in the
interest of public health and recreational amenity, including angling.

9. The developer shall pay to the planning authority a financial contribution in


respect of public infrastructure and facilities benefiting development in the area
of the planning authority that is provided or intended to be provided by or on
behalf of the authority in accordance with the terms of the Development
Contribution Scheme made under section 48 of the Planning and Development
Act 2000. The contribution shall be paid prior to the commencement of
development or in such phased payments as the planning authority may
facilitate and shall be subject to any applicable indexation provisions of the
Scheme at the time of payment. Details of the application of the terms of the
Scheme shall be agreed between the planning authority and the developer or, in
default of such agreement, the matter shall be referred to the Board to determine
the proper application of the terms of the Scheme.

Reason: It is a requirement of the Planning and Development Act 2000 that a


condition requiring a contribution in accordance with the Development
Contribution Scheme made under section 48 of the Act be applied to the
permission.

Member of An Bord Pleanla Margaret Byrne duly authorised to authenticate the


seal of the Board.

Dated this 28th day of August 2009.

The Association is delighted with An Bord Pleanala's permission and looks


forward to seeing the comprehensive monitoring arrangements which must be
put in place.

The Association wrote to the Director of Services Kildare County Council asking
that we be given an input into the monitoring arrangements that must now be
drawn up and the Director replied inter alia by letter dated 16th September
2009 " Please be assured that they will be in contact with relevant officials from
Dublin City Council in order to have an input into the plans and proposals
relating to monitoring arrangements as envisaged in the parent planning
permission. I am also pleased to advise that Mr. Holligan will liase directly with
you in this regard."
So far so good?
http://www.kildare.ie/community/easysiteswp/ballymoreanglers/?page_id=29
7

Committees and Meetings


Committee Members 2012
President Des Tyrrell; Vice-President Tom Nugent; Secretary Gary Bolger; Treasurer
Tommy Deegan; Membership Sec. Fintan Smith; Niall Brosnan; Myles Byrne; Fergus
Byrne; Dave Butler; Pat Dunworth; Sean Goulding; Eamonn Kelly; Trevor Winder;

Committee Members 2011


President Des Tyrrell; Vice-President Tom Nugent; Secretary Gary Bolger;
Treasurer Tommy Deegan; Membership Sec. Fintan Smith; Myles Byrne;
Fergus Byrne; Dave Butler; Declan Cowley; Pat Dunworth; Sean Goulding;
Eamonn Kelly; Trevor Winder;

Committee Members 2010


President Des Tyrrell; Vice-President Tom Nugent; Secretary Gary Bolger;
Treasurer Tommy Deegan; Membership Sec. Fintan Smith; Myles Byrne;
Fergus Byrne; Dave Butler; Declan Cowley; Pat Dunworth; Sean Goulding;
Eamonn Kelly; Trevor Winder;

Committee Members 2009


President Des Tyrrell; Vice-President Tom Nugent; Secretary Gary Bolger;
Treasurer Tommy Deegan; Membership Sec. Fintan Smith; Myles Byrne;
Fergus Byrne; Dave Butler; Declan Cowley; Pat Dunworth; Sean Goulding;
Eamonn Kelly; Trevor Winder;

Committee Members 2008


President Des Tyrrell; Vice-President Tom Nugent; Secretary Gary Bolger;
Treasurer Tommy Deegan; Membership Sec. Fintan Smith; Myles Byrne;
Declan Cowley; Jim Deegan; Pat Dunworth; Sean Goulding;Sean Gunshenan;
Eamonn Kelly; Trevor Winder;
Committee Members 2016
President Des Tyrrell; Vice-President Tom Nugent; Secretary Gary Bolger; Treasurer
Tommy Deegan; Membership Sec. Fintan Smith; Fergus Byrne; Dave Butler; Pat
Dunworth; Liam Stenson

Committee Members 2015


President Des Tyrrell; Vice-President Tom Nugent; Secretary Gary Bolger; Treasurer
Tommy Deegan; Membership Sec. Fintan Smith; Niall Brosnan (R); Fergus Byrne;
Dave Butler; Pat Dunworth; Liam Stenson

Committee Members 2014


President Des Tyrrell; Vice-President Tom Nugent; Secretary Gary Bolger;
Treasurer Tommy Deegan; Membership Sec. Fintan Smith; Myles Byrne;
Fergus Byrne; Dave Butler; Declan Cowley; Pat Dunworth; Sean Goulding;
Eamonn Kelly; Trevor Winder;

Committee Members 2013


President Des Tyrrell; Vice-President Tom Nugent; Secretary Gary Bolger;
Treasurer Tommy Deegan; Membership Sec. Fintan Smith; Myles Byrne;
Fergus Byrne; Dave Butler; Declan Cowley; Pat Dunworth; Sean Goulding;
Eamonn Kelly; Trevor Winder;

Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association Annual


General Meeting To be Held in Phil Murphys Lounge, Ballymore
Eustace on Wednesday 10th February, 2016 at 8pm

COMMITTEE FOR 2015 (Outgoing)


PRESIDENT: Mr. D. Tyrell VICE PRESIDENT: Mr. T. Nugent
HON. TREASURER: Mr. T. Deegan HON. SECRETARY: Mr. G. Bolger
Messrs. D. Butler, F. Byrne, P. Dunworth, F. Smith and L. Stenson
AGENDA
1. PRESIDENTS ADDRESS
2. MINUTES OF A.G.M HELD ON 11th FEB, 2015
3. MATTERS ARISING FROM MINUTES
4. HON. TREASURERS REPORT FOR 2015
5. HON. SECRETARYS REPORT FOR 2015
6. NOTICE OF MOTIONS

7. ELECTION OF HON. OFFICERS AND COMMITTEE


8. OTHER BUSINESS

Members are reminded that nominations for the committee and notice of
motions must be with the Hon. Secretary by Sunday 7th February, 2016.

NB. 2016 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL FORM ENCLOSED WITH REPORT.


<="" p="">

MR. PRESIDENT AND FELLOW MEMBERS

The year 2015 was another successful and active year for our Association.
Angling on our stretches of the Liffey was perhaps not as good as previous years
with the absence of our usual abundant fly hatches particularly evident. Anglers
persevered , however, and fish were caught. Golden Falls Lake also provided
decent sport. Like everything else on the river this year the salmon run was also
late and in an effort to further improve our stocks, angling for salmon is again
prohibited on the River Liffey for the upcoming season and Inland Fisheries
Ireland (formerly the Eastern Regional Fisheries Board ERFB) upholds its bye-
law whereby downstream of Golden Falls Dam anglers can only fish using single
barbless hooks, whether spinning or flyfishing. Bait fishing too, is gone.

MEMBERSHIP

The Association had a total membership of 251 for the year 2015. The
breakdown is as follows: Adults 143, Juniors 38, O.A.P 51, new members 16 and
3 honorary members. It is vital that all members are easily recognizable on
Association waters by the wearing of the Association badges. This makes the task
of our Water Keepers easier and allows Riparian Owners and members to easily
distinguish non-members and trespassers.
Again, it will be necessary for all existing members to renew their membership
before 31st March 2016. Any member who has not renewed membership by that
date will be considered to have resigned from the Association and a new
applicant will be accepted to fill the vacancy.
A special thanks to our Membership Secretary Fintan Smith, for the huge
amount of time and effort involved in the issuing of membership cards and
badges for 2015 and to Phil Murphy, and the Staff of Day To Day for selling day
permits.

FISHING RIGHTS
The Association enjoys the fishing rights of Golden Falls Lake, by permission of the
E.S.B. and both banks of the River Liffey from Drivers Ford, Golden Falls, to the
upper reaches of Beaumount Estate, Harristown, Kilcullen. We also have an
agreement with the E.S.B. whereby members of the Association can purchase both
game and coarse angling permits on Poulaphouca Reservoir for the price of one
permit. Since 2005, members of the Association have also enjoyed fishing rights on
the Liffey at Lucan Demesne. A number of members fished this water in 2015 and
report some decent fishing between canoists.
May I take this opportunity to express our sincere thanks and gratitude to our
Riparian owners for allowing us access to, and the pleasure of fishing these waters.
Once again, may I emphasize that our gratitude can best be expressed by
respecting their property, by using stiles where they are provided, by not damaging
stock, crops or fences, by not leaving gates open and when departing the river or
lake, by taking home our litter. May I also take this opportunity to offer a sincere
thanks to our Water Keepers to taking on the onerous and thankless task of
protecting our fishery.

MEETINGS

A total of 12 committee meetings were held since last years A.G.M., usually on
the last Wednesday of each month. Thanks to all the committee members for
continuing to put in the effort to attend these meetings. Again, I appeal to our
younger members to take in active interest in the Association and become
involved at committee level. Those who are interested in joining the committee
should give their name to any of the existing committee members before the
A.G.M. I wish to thank Phil Murphy for facilitating our meetings every month,
free of charge, in the comfort of her lounge and for her hospitality during the
year.

RESTOCKING

Golden Falls Lake was restocked twice during the 2015 season. In May, 500
brown trout were introduced and on 7th July, a further 700 were added to the
lake. All fish were supplied and delivered free of charge by E.S.B. and as always
on behalf of the Association, I wish to thank them for their generosity. You will
however have noticed the halving of our usual quota of fish. This, the ESB
informed us, is done to economic difficulties and cutbacks. Thanks to all the
members who helped with the stocking, especially Mr. Pat Dunworth and his
boat.
ANGLING COMPETITIONS

Angling on our waters in 2015 was steady without being spectacular and our
competition results reflected this.
The winner of the Angler of the Year Award 2015, decided on a points system
allocated for club angling competitions, was Gay Doody.
The heaviest trout landed during a club competition weighed in at 2lb 1.1oz and
was caught by Des Tyrell who receives the Heaviest Trout of the Year Award
2015
The Juvenile Angler of the Year 2015 was Lee McMullen

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

ADULT RUNNER- JUNIOR RUNNER-


COMPETITION DATE
WINNER UP WINNER UP
Jimmy Evans
22/3/15 J. Winder (382g W. Ryan - -
Cup
M.
J&K Murray Cup 12/4/15 F. Nolan (915g) L. McMullen -
McCaffrey
Punchestown
26/4/15 G. Doody (258g) E. Winder - -
Fest.
D. Tyrrell
T. McKnight Tr. 10/5/15 F. Nolan - -
(938g)
M. Francis
Committee Cup 22/5/15 D. Tyrrell L. McMullen -
(440g)
T. Sweeney
Mick Murphy Sh. 5/6/15 R. Winder - -
(393g)
Sonny Cowley M.McCaffrey
19/6/15 M. Mooney L. McMullen -
Sh. (526g)
Local Trophy 3/7/15 G. Doody (394g) M.Mooney L. McMullen -
Eddie Gordon M. McKenna
24/7/15 G. Doody - -
Sh. (305g)
D. Tyrrell
J. Bolger Tr. 23/8/15 G. Doody - -
(505g)
Anvil Bar Sh. 27/9/15 F. Nolan (593g) M. Mooney - -
Pike M. Reynolds Gerry
6/12/15 - -
Competition (16.5 lbs) Dolan
Turn out for competitions has been marvellous, with this year a lot of invariably
wet anglers enjoying the sandwiches provided by Phil. We are very grateful to all
the people and businesss who sponsor prizes and to the E.S.B. Turlough Hill
who facilitate us with low water on the Liffey for our competitions.

OUR WATERS

Although last season provided decent sport for most anglers, it must be
particularly annoying, especially for those more senior members with years of
experience in the club, that certain problems seem to take their time to become
resolved. These, and more positive aspects, are dealt with in the following points
which I hope will help explain, (or give excuses), as to why we have good and bad
days on our Associations waters.

To some it might seem bizarre that it is fishermen who should largely fight for
conservation but for those fishermen whose livelihood does not depend on it, the
catching of fish is a passion that leads angling clubs all over the country to seek
to improve their given waters. Yes in order to catch fish but the spin off benefits
are enormous. Improved stocks, habitat enhancement, cleaner waters, river
walks, town amenities, youth awareness, the list goes on and Ballymore Eustace
Trout and Salmon Anglers Association takes great pride in its efforts to do its
bit. But like every fishing club, we frequently bang our heads against the brick
wall of authority. Ill lead up to it with the positives.

Campaigning by the original members of our Association had much to do with


the eventual opening of the new Ballymore Eustace Sewage Treatment Plant.
Two years down the line, improvements to the river are obvious. Having said
that, analytical results for Ballymore show that the Emission Limit Values for
certain parameters are being breached some of the time. But only slightly and
they are not having an effect on the downstream river sample. In the
August/September period of 2015, Irish Water, Kildare County Council Capital
Delivery and the Specialist Design and Build Contractor made adjustments to
the plant in order to bring it into its optimum operational status. The
Associations resident scientist Mr. T. Deegan keeps a close watch on the
monitoring results and for the moment declares himself satisfied.
Our water keepers are keeping an eye to ensure that the Associations waters
are not fished illegally, or during the off season. To that end, there has been a
change to our day permits. The date must be filled in or the permit is invalid.

As I mentioned, we now have an off season. With both eel and salmon fishing
already prohibited in order to enhance stocks, it was voted unanimously at our
last AGM to give our waters trout a well earned rest as well. The river is closed
to all angling during the closed season but the dts can be calmed by pike fished
on Golden Falls Lake except for the month of October.

In November, the Association was informed by IFI that there were just over
1,000 salmon in the Liffey but only 250 had made their way above Leixlip. The
numbers might not appear great but the future is hopefully bright. On the 7th
August and 30th September, IFI carried out an electro-fishing survey at seven
different locations on our Associations stretch of the river. Results for salmon
parr are very good indeed with Dorans Park particularly excelling.

The raking of gravel beds and the enhancement works to feeder streams bear
fruit and in order to catch this fruit, volunteers work to make fishing conditions
easier. The attempted eradication of Himalayan Balsam is ongoing. Soon to
come, with the kind permission of Riparian Owners, is a thinning out of our tree
lined banks. It will be done in a gentle eco-friendly manner and if help is needed,
well call on members.

Which brings us to the brick wall which yet again has dominated most of the
committees meetings this year. It is now, more or less, the sixth anniversary of
our early season algae problem which we believe is caused by the Ammonia
Emissions at the Blessington Waste Water Treatment Plant. To simplify the
science, the Ammonia Emissions Limit Value set out by the EPA in its granting
of the discharge licence, is 5. The levels shown by Blessington Waste Water
Treatment Plant from January to July 2015 were 43.9, 33.6, 35.9, 27.7, 31.0 and
16.4. Horrendous.

Where we are at the minute is this. On the 30th November, the Association
received a letter from a Licence Enforcement Inspector at the EPA which
informed us that the Agency has an Open Compliance Investigation against the
Blessington WWTP which is being progressed with Irish Water to bring the
facility into compliance with the WWD Licence and to ensure that there are no
unnecessary delays. Irish Water has not informed the EPA to date of the
implementation of an optimisation at the Blessington plant but Irish Water have
been instructed by the EPA to respond directly to our Association with a
response to our complaints and concerns. With Irish Water, the EPA and
Wicklow County Council in the mix, one would hope for a speedy resolution.

Good health and tight lines for 2016


Gary Bolger,
Honorary Secretary.
www.kildare.ie/ballymoreanglers

Hon. Secretary's Reports


Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association

Annual General Meeting

To be Held in Phil Murphys Lounge, Ballymore Eustace on Wednesday 13th


February, 2013 at 8pm

COMMITTEE FOR 2012 (Outgoing)

PRESIDENT: Mr. D. Tyrell VICE PRESIDENT: Mr. T. Nugent HON. TREASURER: Mr. T.
Deegan HON. SECRETARY: Mr. G. Bolger

Messrs. M. Byrne, F. Byrne, N. Brosnan, D. Butler, P. Dunworth, S. Goulding, E.


Kelly, F. Smith and T. Winder.

AGENDA

1. PRESIDENTS ADDRESS
2. MINUTES OF A.G.M HELD ON 8th FEB, 2012
3. MATTERS ARISING FROM MINUTES
4. HON. TREASURERS REPORT FOR 2012
5. HON. SECRETARYS REPORT FOR 2012
6. NOTICE OF MOTIONS
7. ELECTION OF HON. OFFICERS AND COMMITEE
8. OTHER BUSINESS

Members are reminded that nominations for the committee and notice of motions
must be with the Hon. Secretary by Sunday 3rd February, 2013.
NB. 2013 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL FORM ENCLOSED WITH REPORT.

HON. SECRETARYS REPORT FOR 2012.

MR. PRESIDENT AND FELLOW MEMBERS


The year 2012 was another successful and active year for our Association. Angling
on our stretches of the Liffey was excellent with Mr. Tom Nugents winning fish in
the Mick Murphy Shield on 8th June showing the way and after a sleepy start
Golden Falls Lake also provided decent sport. Things are looking up for our salmon
run too, but in an effort to further improve our stocks, angling for salmon is again
prohibited on the River Liffey for the upcoming season and Inland Fisheries Ireland
(formerly the Eastern Regional Fisheries Board ERFB) upholds its bye-law whereby
downstream of Golden Falls Dam anglers can only fish using single barbless hooks,
whether spinning or flyfishing. Bait fishing too, is gone.

MEMBERSHIP
The Association had a total membership of 302 for the year 2012. The breakdown
is as follows: 178 Adults, 46 Juniors, 55 O.A.P, 20 new members and 3 honorary
members. It is vital that all members are easily recognizable on Association waters
by the wearing of the Association badges. This makes the task of our Water
Keepers easier and allows Riparian Owners and members to easily distinguish non-
members and trespassers.
Again, it will be necessary for all existing members to renew their membership
before 31st March, 2013. Any member who has not renewed membership by that
date will be considered to have resigned from the Association and a new applicant
will be accepted to fill the vacancy. A special thanks to our Membership Secretary
Fintan Smith, for the huge amount of time and effort involved in the issuing of
membership cards and badges for 2012 and to Janet Deegan and Staff of Village
Store, and Staff of Byrnes Costcutters and Phil Murphy for selling day permits.
FISHING RIGHTS
The Association enjoys the fishing rights of Golden Falls Lake, by permission of the
E.S.B. and both banks of the River Liffey from Drivers Ford, Golden Falls, to the
upper reaches of Beaumount Estate, Harristown, Kilcullen. We also have an
agreement with the E.S.B. whereby members of the Association can purchase both
game and coarse angling permits on Poulaphouca Reservoir for the price of one
permit. Since 2005, members of the Association have also enjoyed fishing rights on
the Liffey at Lucan Demesne. A number of members fished this water in 2012 and
report some fine trout landed when not foul hooking canoists.
May I take this opportunity to express our sincere thanks and gratitude to our
Riparian owners for allowing us access to, and the pleasure of fishing these waters.
Once again, may I emphasize that our gratitude can best be expressed by
respecting their property, by using stiles where they are provided, by not damaging
stock, crops or fences, by not leaving gates open and when departing the river or
lake, by taking home our litter. May I also take this opportunity to offer a sincere
thanks to our Water Keepers to taking on the onerous and thankless task of
protecting our fishery.

MEETINGS
A total of 12 committee meetings were held since last years A.G.M., usually on the
last Wednesday of each month. Thanks to all the committee members for
continuing to put in the effort to attend these meetings. Again, I appeal to our
younger members to take in active interest in the Association and become involved
at committee level. Those who are interested in joining the committee should give
their name to any of the existing committee members before the A.G.M. I wish to
thank Phil Murphy for facilitating our meetings every month, free of charge, in the
comfort of her lounge and for her hospitality during the year.

RESTOCKING
Golden Falls Lake was restocked twice during the 2012 season. On 12th April, 1,000
brown trout were introduced and on 16th August, a further 1,000 brown trout,
some up to 2lbs in weight, were added to the lake. All fish were supplied and
delivered free of charge by E.S.B. and on behalf of the Association, I wish to thank
them for their generosity. A special thanks to E.S.B.s man on the lake, Mr. Peadar
Moran, E.S.B. Amenity Officer, Liffey Stations for his help and advice during
restocking operations on Golden Galls. Thanks to Golden Falls Water Ski Club for
the use of their facilities and thanks also to all the members who helped with the
restocking.
ANGLING COMPETITIONS
Angling on our waters in 2012 was a great year and our competition results were
excellent.
The winner of the Angler of the Year Award 2012, decided on a points system
allocated for club angling competitions, was Gay Doody with 22 points. Runner up
was Mick Mooney on 16 points.
The heaviest trout landed during a club competition weighed in at 4lb 1.7oz and
was caught by Tom Nugent who receives the Heaviest Trout of the Year Award
2012.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Competition Date Adult Winner R-Up Junior Winner Runner up
Jimmy Evans Cup 25/3/12 G. Doody M. Mooney - No junior weighed-in
J.& K Murray Cup 08/4/12 M. Mooney T. Winder -
Punchestown Trophy 01/5/12 M. Mooney G. Doody -
Tony McKnight Trophy 06/5/12 M. Reynolds M. Francis -
Committee Cup 25/5/12 V. Miske F. Smith -
Mick Murphy Shield 08/6/12 T. Nugent D. Tyrell -
Sonny Cowley Shield 22/6/12 G. Doody F. Byrne -
Local Perpetual Trophy 06/7/12 G. Doody M. McKenna -
Eddie Gordon Trophy 27/7/12 F. Nolan B. McDonagh -
Guinness Trophy 26/8/12 F. Nolan F. Byrne -
Anvil Bar Shield 30/9/12 M. Francis F. Byrne -
Pike Competition 2/12/12 M. Francis P. McGlynn -

Turn out for competitions, as always, has been marvellous, with this year a lot of
invariably wet anglers enjoying the sandwiches provided by Phil but you may have
noticed the lack of juvenile involvement. Where are they? Get them out!
We are very grateful to all the people and businesss who sponsor prizes and to the
E.S.B. Turlough Hill who facilitate us with low water on the Liffey for our
competitions.

OUR WATERS
Although last season provided decent sport for most anglers, it must be
particularly annoying, especially for those more senior members with years of
experience in the club, that certain problems seem to take their time to become
resolved. These, and more positive aspects, are dealt with in the following points
which I hope will help explain, (or give excuses), as to why we have good and bad
days on our Associations waters.
In these notes in the last couple of years, I have tried to make sense of and
summarise water quality issues on our Associations waters, especially with regard
to our annual early season algae problem, but sometimes a secretary should do
what a secretary does best. So while I made tea Mr. Tommy Deegan, Engineer,
composed this:
Ballymore Eustace and Blessington Waste Water Discharge Licences (WWDL)
Angling Clubs throughout the country were delighted when Mr. John Gormley,
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government brought into effect
on the 27th September 2007 a system for licensing sewage effluent discharges
from local authority sewage treatment plants. Up to that point local authorities did
their own thing and were answerable only to themselves which in turn led to
totally unacceptable levels of pollution in many of our rivers and lakes. Indeed we
have only to look at our own dilapidated, obnoxious, Liffey polluting sewage
treatment plant at the Strand as an example. Nowadays sewage treatment plants
are referred to as Waste Water Treatment Plants (WWTP) and the Licensing
Authority is the Environmental Protection Agency.
The licensing and certification authorisation process was introduced on a phased
basis commencing on 14th December 2007 in accordance with the requirements of
the Waste Water Discharge (Authorisation) Regulations, 2007 (S.I. No. 684 of
2007), which meant that the largest WWTPs had to apply earliest. The other good
news was that licenses must be reviewed within 6 years but can be reviewed any
time after 3 years.
Wicklow County Council applied for a Waste Water Discharge Licence (D0063-01)
for the Blessington WWTP discharge into Golden Falls Lake on the 28th August
2008 and Kildare County Council applied for a licence for a proposed new WWTP at
the Kimmeens, Ballymore Eustace (D0238-01) on the 27th February 2009. The EPA
issued a WWDL for Ballymore Eustace on the 17th February 2011 and for
Blessington on the 7th June 2012.
The TSAA and others made submissions to the EPA regarding both applications and
correspondence from all parties i.e. applicants, EPA and all third parties such as
ourselves, can be viewed on the EPA website www.epa.ie (click on WWDA and
enter number or name).
When the EPA issued a WWDL for Ballymore Eustace, the EPA Inspector dealing
with the application in her report stated that there is no assimilative capacity in
the receiving water for orthophosphate, ammonia or Biological Oxygen Demand
(BOD) based on the quality standards under the European Communities
Environmental Objectives (Surface Water) Regulations, 2009, (S.I. No. 272 of 2009)
and that the 95%ile upstream concentration of orthophosphate (0.203mg/l)
ammonia (0.99mg/l) and BOD (6 mg/l) are all already in breach of S.I. No. 272 of
2009 before consideration of the WWTP discharge contribution.
Because of the annual algae growth in the Liffey which we reported regularly to
the EPA (our letters were referred on to the section of the EPA dealing with the
Blessington WWDL) we readily agreed with the Inspectors Report and were
delighted that someone else was stating the obvious.
Since the algae growth also appears upstream of the Ballymore Eustace sewage
discharge, the Association believes that the Blessington discharge into Golden Falls
is responsible for the algae growth. The Director of Services Wicklow County
Council in a letter dated 23rd May 2012 addressed to the Association but copied to
the EPA and others got very annoyed and accused us of trying to denigrate the
reputation of Wicklow County Council and performance of the Blessington Waste
Water Treatment Plant without the submission of any evidence that this is the
case. The Association replied by letter dated 29th May 2012 enclosing a graph
showing high levels of ammonia in Golden Falls Lake and the Liffey at the time of
the algae growth. There were no high ammonia levels in the Poulaphouca
Reservoir samples so it was obvious that the problem started in Golden Falls Lake.
The Inspector dealing with Blessington WWDA uses a ERBD report to get around
the problem stating According to the ERBD, the presence of elevated phosphorous
levels is thought to come from a combination of agricultural sources and from
planning and development. The WWTP in Blessington is not considered to be a
cause of significant deterioration in water quality in Golden Falls Lake. How about
that for a cop out.
The Inspector dealing with the Blessington discharge in his report also states under
the heading European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Water)
Regulations 2009, S.I. No. 272 of 2009 The water quality downstream of the
WWTP shows that the River Liffey complies with the water quality standards for
BOD, ammonia and orthophosphate stipulated in S.I. 272 of 2009. It is considered
that the primary discharge is not adversely impacting the chemical water quality of
the receiving water.
The Association was and is totally and utterly confused at what appears to be two
conflicting Inspectors Reports on water quality in the Liffey at Ballymore Eustace
and have corresponded with the EPA on the matter but without any satisfaction.
All the correspondence can be read on the EPA and
www.kildare.ie/ballymoreanglers websites.

One species that we hope will no longer benefit from this ammonia is our
Himalayan Balsam. Armed with black bags and elbow grease, various club
members pulled and dragged for two Saturdays in early August. Thanks go to all
who signed up for the task.
Access to the river for such work, and angling, has of course been made easier by
the repair works carried out to our villages river walkway. Hats off to Kildare
County Council. A job well done.
Our other walkway, following the river from the Old Factory up through the woods
to Golden Falls Lake, is still a work in progress but with thanks to Mr. Tom Kinirons
of Dublin City Council, we hope to have it up and running soon.

We can finish on a positive note. Our Association sent away some scales from Tom
Nugents 4lb 1.7oz trout, currently residing in Phil Murphys Bar, to have them
analysed by Inland Fisheries Ireland. The fish, we learned, was seven or eight years
old which put it into the fast or very fast category for growth of brown trout in Irish
rivers. Thirty nine years ago, with the prompting of the late Mick Murphy and
others, this Association was born and all founder members, still with us or not,
must be delighted with the commencement of our new sewage treatment plant. A
step closer to cleaner water. Toms trout wouldnt be where he is if hed kept his
mouth shut, Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association is where it is
now because it didnt.
Good health and tight lines for 2013
Gary Bolger,
Honorary Secretary.
www.kildare.ie/ballymoreanglers.
The following points were also brought to the notice of the A.G.M.
History of Ballymore Eustace Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade
Following representations from the Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers
Association in the 1970s, Kildare County Council since the mid 1980s, has
promised a new sewage treatment plant for Ballymore Eustace. At first, the village
was to be linked to the Upper Liffey Valley Regional Sewage Treatment Plant at
Osberstown, Naas, Co. Kildare. Policy later changed (probably as a result of
Wicklow County Council discharging Blessington WWTP effluent into Golden Falls
Lake) and Kildare County Council decided that Ballymore Eustace would get its own
Sewage Plant.
Things dragged on until 1998 when Abbeydrive Development (Gerry Deane) sought
planning permission from Kildare County Council for 507 houses at the 40 acres
Broadleas, Ballymore Eustace. Abbeydrive also sought permission to build a 2000
P.E. Sewage Treatment Plant at Kildare County Councils existing site at the Strand,
Ballymore Eustace. However, An Bord Pleanala refused planning permission for the
416 house development which Kildare County Council had granted but did grant
planning permission for the proposed new sewage treatment plant. As expected
without permission to construct the houses, Abbeydrive did not construct a new
Sewage Treatment Plant. These Developments were the subject of a Bord Pleanala
Oral Hearing at which the TSAA argued that the new sewage treatment plant
should be located downstream of the village.
On the 6th October 2005, Kildare County Council announced under Part 8 of the
Planning & Development Regulations 2001that it intended to construct a new
Waste Water Treatment Plant at Susheen, Ballymore Eustace and convert the
existing plant at the Strand to a pumping station. However, an objection by the
Health Service Executive dated 29th March 2006, on the basis that the proposed
site was too close to an existing residence, put an end to this plan.
In December 2007, the Council again advertised under Part 8, their intention to
construct a new sewage treatment plant, this time at a site downstream of the
village at the Kimmeens, Ballymore Eustace with the existing plant being converted
to a pumping station. It appeared to be all systems go, as there was no objection to
the proposed plant. It was expected that the plant would be operational in 2009.
Site investigation surveys, archaeological surveys, landscape surveys were all
carried out during 2008. However, the village was devastated by a letter dated the
26th February 2009 from The Director of Services, Kildare County Council stating
that due to the present financial crises the project was being reviewed by the
Department of the Environment and indeed the Minister for the Environment Mr.
John Gormley withdrew proposed funding under the Serviced Land Initiative. The
Council made a positive submission to the Department of the Environment citing,
in particular, the extent to which planning applications are currently on hold as
well as the desirability of addressing water quality issues. Representation was
also made to the Minister for the Environment by the Ballymore Eustace Trout and
Salmon Anglers Association requesting that the new plant be approved in order to
prevent continued pollution of the Liffey and to allow the village to develop rather
than stagnate and die. Mr. Jack Wall T.D., on behalf of the Angling Association, put
forward no less than five different Parliamentary Questions to the Minister
concerning the proposed Ballymore Eustace Sewage Treatment Plant.
The whole village was delighted when on the 19th April 2010 the Minister for the
Environment Mr. John Gormley published the Water Services Investment
Programme 2010-2012. A total of 3,545,000 was allocated to the Ballymore
Eustace Wastewater Treatment Plant. Our delight was somewhat curtailed when
we learned from the Director of Services, Water and Environment Dept., Kildare
County Council that when the Minister for the Environment Mr. John Gormley
included Ballymore Eustace WWTP in the 2010-2012 Serviced Land Initiative this
meant 40% funding by the DoEHLG and 60% funding by Developers/KCC.
On the 21st April 2011 the Director of Services Kildare County Council met with
developers interested in building in Ballymore Eustace and found that there was
little prospect of private sector funding for the construction of the new sewage
treatment plant at Ballymore Eustace bearing in mind that substantial dezoning
took place in the village in the new County Development Plan 2011 - 2017. In an
email dated 21st April 2011 to the three South Kildare T.Ds, the Director of
Services informed them that Kildare County Council had applied to have the project
approved as a conventional project with 78% funding by the DoEHLG and 22%
funding by KCC.
Again things appeared to be in the balance when the Director of Services Kildare
County Council informed us that the new Minister for the Environment Mr. Phil
Hogan T.D. was reviewing all spending by his Department. Jack Wall T.D., on
behalf of Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers agreed to ask a
Parliamentary Question of the Minister to find out the Ministers position. A letter
from The Director of Services to the TSAA dated 19th July 2011 states that ---" the
final consents from the Department are now expected and it is, therefore,
envisaged the new sewerage treatment plant will shortly be going to tender. I will
keep you appraised regarding progress.---"
The Department did consent to the new funding arrangement.
Councillor Mark Wall received the following reply from Water Services, Kildare
County Council at the Athy Area meeting on Monday 19th September 2011.
Report: Matters are progressing well; all design aspects are complete, issues
relating to accommodation works, wayleaves and contract documentation are
currently being finalised. It is proposed that the project will go to tender before the
end of the current year. There will be two contracts involved i.e. the waste water
treatment plant and the network. A construction period of approximately one year
is envisaged.
The members will be kept informed on progress.
(Issued by G. Halton, Senior Executive Officer, Water Services)"
The Trout and Salmon Anglers on 31st January 2012 emailed the Director of
Services, Water & Environment, Kildare County Council seeking a reason for the
delay in tendering and received the following reply on the same date The delay is
certainly regretted but it does seem that issues are now resolved.. We met the dept
of environment inspector on 19 January and discussed the matter...the only
outstanding issue currently, as far as I am aware, is to forward and agree budget
projections. All design aspects and contract documents are finalised, wayleaves
should be in-hand, and I see no reason why we cant go to tender before the end of
February.
A further email reply from the Director of Services dated 6th March 2012 stated
treatment plant now going to tender...got declg approval last week.....
Then, on the 28th March 2012 the tender notices appeared on eTender. Two
contracts, the main WWTP at the Kimmeens and the Pumping Station plus
pipework at the Strand. The contacts between Ward & Burke (Pumping station and
pipe laying) and Resource Engineering (WWTP) were signed in December 2012 and
work is now progressing.
The EPA on the 17th February 2011 granted a Waste Water Discharge Licence for
the proposed Waste Water Treatment Plant and one of the conditions is that the
Plant be operational by December 2012. However, that date cannot be met.
A Landscaping Plan for the old Sewage Plant site i.e. new Pumping Station
(including a Special Needs Anglers facility) which will totally transform this
section of the Riverside Walk was agreed between Kildare County Council and the
Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association and we are desperately
awaiting its implementation.
At present, planning permission has been granted by Kildare County Council, with a
condition attached that construction cannot start until the new Waste Water
Treatment Plant is constructed, for a 59 bed Nursing Home at Tinnycross, 11 houses
at Donaghys old Garage site, 4 houses in Barrack Street, 3 houses at Golden Falls.
The derelict house on Oliver Plunkett Road beside Paddy Murphys Pub was refused
planning permission for apartments and three shop units solely because the
present sewage treatment plant is overloaded.
A new sewage treatment plant will have numerous advantages for the village: it
will remove the existing dilapidated sewage plant away from the centre of the
village and Riverside Walk/Linear Park amenity area and replace it with a
landscaped pumping station.
it will improve the quality of the water in the River Liffey.
it will remove current obnoxious smells from this amenity area.
it will transform the visual aspect and amenity value of the Riverside Walk.
it will cease the current discharges of raw sewage to the Liffey at the Riverside
Walk amenity area.
it will allow development and clean-up of the current derelict sites and buildings in
the village.
It will allow the village to develop in a controlled way.

SLUDGE TREATMENT PLANT

On the 28th August 2009, An Bord Pleanala granted planning permission to Dublin
City Council for the construction of a new replacement Sludge Treatment Plant.
Tom Kinirons, Senior Engineer at the Dublin City Council Water Treatment Plant
confirmed in January 2013 that contract documents are now being drawn up and
that the Plant will go for Tender probably at the end of March 2013.

The Association is pleased with the following condition imposed by An Bord


Pleanala and have reminded Kildare County Council.

8. (a) Comprehensive monitoring arrangements relating to the volume and quality


of the treated filtrate and supernatant wastewater discharges to the River Liffey
shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the planning authority prior to the
commencement of development. In this regard, the process wastewater shall be
treated to ensure compliance with the parameter limits which shall be specified by
the planning authority having regard to the River Liffey Catchment Management
Plan under the Water Framework Directive.
(b) The agreed monitoring regime shall provide for sampling, at regular, specified,
intervals of the following:
(i) Supernatant from the sludge thickening tanks. (ii) Spillway contents, including
the combined filtrate, supernatant, washwater and surface water from the plant,
prior to discharge.
(iii) Water in the Golden Falls Reservoir, upstream of the spillway discharge from
the plant.
(iv) Water in the River Liffey, downstream of the spillway discharge from the plant.
(c) The physico/chemical parameters to be monitored shall include the following:
Colour, Turbidity, Aluminium, Suspended Solids and PH.
(d) The data generated from this sampling/monitoring regime shall be forwarded
to the planning authority at regular, specified, intervals and shall be made
available for public inspection.
Reason: In order to protect the quality of the water in the River Liffey in theinterest
of public health and recreational amenity, including angling.

We have also reminded Kildare County Council with regard to the following
condition on the Bowl Barrow, a recorded monument (Ref KD 029:051).

5. Pre-development testing shall consist of the following:


(1) The developer shall engage the services of a suitably qualified archaeologist
(licensed under the National Monuments Acts 19301994) to carry out pre-
development testing at the site. No sub-surface work shall be undertaken in the
absence of the archaeologist without his/her express consent.
(2) The archaeologist shall notify the National Monuments Service of the
Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in writing at least
four weeks prior to the commencement of site preparations. This will allow the
archaeologist sufficient time to obtain a licence to carry out the work.
(3) The archaeologist shall carry out any relevant documentary research and may
excavate test trenches at locations chosen by the archaeologist, having consulted
the proposed development plans.
(4) Having completed the work, the archaeologist shall submit a written report to
the planning authority and to the National Monuments Service for consideration.
(5) Where archaeological material is shown to be present, preservation in situ,
preservation by record (excavation) and/or monitoring may be required and the
National Monuments Service will advise the developer with regard to these
matters.
(6) No site preparation or construction work shall be carried out until after the
archaeologists report has been submitted and permission to proceed has been
received in writing from the planning authority in consultation with the National
Monuments Service.
Reason: To ensure the continued preservation (either in situ or by record) of
features or other objects of archaeological interest which may lie within the site.
The Association is delighted with An Bord Pleanala's permission and looks forward
to seeing the comprehensive monitoring arrangements which must be put in place.

When An Bord Pleanala granted planning permission the Association wrote to the
Director of Services Kildare County Council asking that we be given an input into
the monitoring arrangements that must now be drawn up and the Director replied
inter alia by letter dated 16th September 2009 " Please be assured that they will be
in contact with relevant officials from Dublin City Council in order to have an input
into the plans and proposals relating to monitoring arrangements as envisaged in
the parent planning permission. I am also pleased to advise that Mr. Holligan will
liaise directly with you in this regard."

IRISH WATER

The Programme of Financial Support for Ireland agreed between the Government
and the EU/IMF required, inter alia, that by the end of 2011, the Government
would devise a way to transfer responsibility for the provision of water services
from the local authorities to a water utility.

The Programme for National Recovery 2011-2016, indicates that the Government
will create Irish Water, a new State company that will take over key water/waste
water functions from the 34 existing local authorities.

Irish Water will take over ALL assets from 2014. The Council's will then operate
those facilities under what are known as Service Level Agreements (SLAs) which
will be in place until at least 2017.
The EPA will deal with Irish Water who will in turn penalise the Councils'. That
process will probably form part of the SLAs.

Dublin City Manager John Tierney has been appointed as managing director of Irish
Water, the State's new water utility.
http://www.kildare.ie/community/easysiteswp/ballymoreanglers/?page_id=35
1
https://ruralelectric.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/pg-ss-r-23.pdf

BALLYMORE EUSTACE TROUT AND SALMON ANGLERS


ASSOCIATION.

Welcome to the Website of the Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon


Anglers Association.

Ballymore Eustace Village (populatation 820, 2011 Census) is situated


in County Kildare on the banks of the River Liffey and the parish
(population 1475, 2011 Census) also extends into County Wicklow. We
are blessed that the River Liffey, Poulaphouca Reservoir and Golden
Falls Lake are on our doorstep. The Wicklow mountains and Dublin City
are only a short distance away. There are many attractions in the area
including Horse Racing at Punchestown, the Curragh and Naas, Golf
Courses within a 5 mile radius, Water Skiing at Golden Falls and many
other water sport activities on Poulaphouca Reservoir. There is a long
tradition of GAA (Kildare and Leinster Intermediate Football Champions
2010) and Handball (World Champions) in Ballymore Eustace.

If angling is your sport, then welcome to paradise.

We hope you enjoy your visit to our website

The Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers' Association (TSAA)


has a written Constitution and Rules.

The objects of the Association are:


to promote, develop and foster angling in the water under its control;
to assist in the protection and preservation of waters and generally exert
its influence for the betterment of the sport;
the protection and improvement of the Trout and Salmon habitat such
as spawning gravels and bankside cover:
The protection and improvement of the Local Biodiversity

https://ruralelectric.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/pg-ss-r-7.pdf
ANGLING

Angling is a method of fishing by means of an "angle" (fish hook). The


hook is usually attached to a fishing line and the line is often attached to
a fishing rod. Fishing rods are usually fitted with a fishing reel that
functions as a mechanism for storing, retrieving and paying out the line.
The hook itself can be dressed with various materials to represent
aquatic insects (fish food) or small fish (also larger fish food). This is an
art in itself and is referred to as fly tying.

Angling is the principal method of sport fishing, but commercial


fisheries also use angling methods such as longlining or trolling. Catch
and release fishing is increasingly practiced by recreational fishermen
and is encouraged by the Ballymore Eustace TSAA. In Ireland and many
parts of the world, size limits apply to certain species, meaning fish
below and/or above a certain size must, by law, be released.

The River Liffey at Ballymore Eustace has a good stock of brown trout
and the occasional pike. Angling for salmon on the River Liffey is
prohibited by law due to the decrease in salmon stocks and will
continue to be prohibited until the Conservation Limit of 4000 salmon
entering the Liffey system to spawn each year is achieved. A tall ask as
less than 1000 salmon are currently entering the system each year. Also,
as a precaution against a salmon being accidently hooked when angling
for trout, single barbless hooks must be used.

Our water of Golden Falls Lake is a put and take trout fishery and holds
some excellent pike.

https://ruralelectric.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/pg-ss-r-26.pdf

Electrical part of the Shannon Scheme 110 kV Transformer Station Dublin

https://ruralelectric.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/pg-ss-r-31.pdf

The pike bye law no. 809 (2006) provides for the following conservation
measures: a bag limit of 1 pike in any one day, prohibits the killing of
any pike greater than 50 cm in length, prohibits the possession by any
person of more than 1 whole pike less than 50 cm. One aspect of the
new bye law is that a pike over the specimen weight of 20 lbs. (9.072
Kg.) for a river fish and 30 lbs. (13.608 Kg.) for a lake fish are now
protected and cannot be killed as in the previous bye law.

Angling for eel is also prohibited by law

https://ruralelectric.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/pg-ss-r-1.pdf
https://ruralelectric.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/pg-ss-r-27.pdf

http://kildare.ie/CountyCouncil/NationalRoadsOffice/M7OsberstownInterchan
geR407SallinsBypassScheme2013/EIS-EIA/EISVolume4-
Appendices/M7%20Osberstown%20-
%20EIS%20Volume%204%20Appendix%20A3.1%20D%20Flood%20Assessme
nt%20of%20River%20Liffey%20Report.pdf

The story before the Shannon Scheme

The Five Lamps, at the junction of Amiens Street and North Strand Road, early examples of late 19th
century lighting in Dublin. Originally used as gas lamps

In Ireland, street lighting on any scale was unheard of before the middle of the 17 th century. People
going out after dark carried their own lights. The first recorded public electricity supply scheme in
Dublin was outside the Freemans Journal offices on Princes Street with the establishment of the
Dublin Electric Light Company with a paid up capital of 15,000. The company had a small
experimental station in Schoolhouse Lane. In 1881 there were seventeen arc lamps in circuit and by
1882 this had increased to 114. Supply of current was exclusively for lighting and the new service was
seen as offering little challenge as yet to gas, even though a number of large companies, including Pims
and Jacobs, had switched on.

The invention of the electric dynamo by Michael Faraday brought in the era of the electric light. In
1892 Dublin Corporation opened a new generating station at Fleet Street designed to supply 81 electric
arc lamps to light the principal streets of Dublin. The station had an output of 0.9 megawatts.
Original equipment at Pigeon House plant

In July 1903 the Corporation opened a new station at Pigeon House Fort on the estuary of the river
Liffey. It had a generating capacity of 3 megawatts. Soon after, the Fleet Street station closed down.
Apart from the use of arc lamps on the main streets, the side streets continued to be lit mainly by gas
lamps until the more efficient tungsten filament gas filled lamp became available.

The first electric light aroused considerable public interest especially among leading businessmen who,
like their contemporaries in England, were quickly becoming aware of the commercial possibilities of
electricity. Kildare Street, Dawson Street and part of Stephens Green were lighted with arc lamps on
wooden posts.

The first provincial town in Ireland to have public lighting was Carlow. The system, though simple,
was advanced for its time- a generating plant on the Barrow in the flour mill owned by Major
Alexander in the village of Milford, four miles from Carlow. The Carlow system, commissioned in
1889, was opened in 1891 on a night when Charles Stewart Parnell, was addressing a meeting there.

By the early 1920s electricity consumption in Ireland was running at nearly 50 megawatt (MW), 75 per
cent of which was used in Dublin. When ESB was established in 1927, the Irish electricity industry had
been in existence for over forty years with over 300 small electricity producers around the State,
mostly hydro-powered and generating direct current, which could be transmitted only a few hundred
metres.
Dublin City power station at Fleet Street c. 1900

The rate of progress during those early years had been slow, prices were high and consumer numbers
were small by international standards. Apart from lighting and heating, little use had been found for
electricity in either industry or agriculture.

However, demand for electricity was rapidly growing, and the new Irish Free State government began
to consider a large hydroelectricity station. Sir John Purser Griffith, proposed a Liffey scheme with a
reservoir at Blessington and power station at Poulaphouca. This would be easy to build, be close to the
main electricity market in Dublin, and the reservoir could double as a water supply for the city.

Meanwhile, Thomas McLaughlin, a young graduate engineer from Drogheda, looked towards a
solution that would serve the whole country, the River Shannon. This idea was previously put forward
in 1844 by the Irish chemist, Sir Robert Kane. It was not until the end of the 19th century that interest in
the Shannon Scheme was revived again with the development of hydroelectricity.

McLaughlin, an employee of the German firm Siemens-Schuckert since 1922, studied hydro-electric
schemes in Europe and on his return to Ireland in December 1923, presented his findings to
Government. After the plans were revisited and approved by an international team of experts, in June
1925 the contract for the development of the hydro-electric scheme on the Shannon began in earnest
the rest as they say is history.
Welcome to University College Cork

DETERMINING PHOSPHORUS AND SEDIMENT RELEASE


RATES FROM FIVE ...

Owen McIntyre

A review of phosphorus and sediment release from Irish ... action in the field of

water policy, ... STRIVE_AnnRpt09.pdf

(24 October 2010) European Communities .

Environmental Law, International Water Law, Natural Resources Law, EU Law,


Public International Law, Comparative Law.
My research endeavours to provide critical, in-depth analysis of legal
developments relevant to a wide range of areas of environmental protection in
Ireland and to examine and assess EU developments in environmental law and
their potential impact on the structure and practice of Irish Law. In addition, I
strive to examine the theoretical foundations and practical application of rules
and principles of international environmental and natural resources law, with a
particular emphasis on international water resources law. My published work
has been widely cited and referenced in a range of contexts. For example, a 1997
article on `The Precautionary Principle as a Norm of Customary International
Law ' , is the most cited article in the history of the Journal of Environmental Law
(OUP):http://jel.oxfordjournals.org/reports/most-cited and has been cited by
the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea, Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases
(New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan) [1999] ITLOS Cases No. 3 and 4,
Separate Opinion of Judge Laing, at para.

https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no_3_4/Separate.
Laing.27.08.99.E.pdf

and the Canadian Supreme Court in Castonguay Blasting Ltd. v. Ontario, 17 Oct.
2013, at para. 20: http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-
csc/en/item/13289/index.do The same article was selected for inclusion in
Volume 1 of a two-volume collection containing `seminal works ' and `essays of
central importance in the development of international law ' - P. M. Pevato,
International Environmental Law, Volume I (Library of Essays in International
Law, Ashgate, Dartmouth, 2003) 235-256, ISBN 07546 2239 8.

A number of academic publications on various aspects of Irish environmental


Law have been cited in the mainstream press, including: `Another Life: Europe
Protects Ireland from Land Rape ' , Irish Times,26 October 2002; `Serve Notice
on Noisy Neighbours ' , Sunday Business Post, 26 November 2006. Similarly, my
research has been

cited extensively in the international press. See, for example, a recent feature
article on the Al Jazeera network: C. MacDiarmid, Egypt to Escalate Ethiopian
Dam Dispute (21 April 2014):

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/04/egypt-escalate-
ethiopian-dam-dispute-201448135352769150.html

I am regularly invited to contribute to high-profile meetings and online research


dissemination events, e.g. the
1st International Environmental Forum for Basin Organisations, organized by
UNEP, 26-28 November, Nairobi, where I was invited by the UNEP Executive
Director to Moderate Theme 3: Laws and Regulations, or the High-Level
Roundtable Discussion: Water and Armed Conflict / Humanitarian
Emergencies,co- hosted by HRH Prince El-Hassan bin Talal and International
Committee of the Red Cross/Crescent (ICRC) President, Dr. Peter Maurer,
Amman, Jordan, 31 August 2014, where I was asked to make a presentation on
The Applicability of International Humanitarian Law and Other Relevant Bodies
of Law or Norms during times of Armed Conflict.

In terms of research impact, I have authored a seminal report leading to UK and


Irish accession to the United Nations Watercourses Convention in December
2013: Assessment of Implications for Management of Cross-Border Waters of
United Kingdom Accession to the U.N. Watercourses Convention, prepared for
the Northern Ireland Department of Environment on behalf of WWF (UK), (April
2011). I have also been invited in 2013 by the Secretary-General of the Ramsar
Convention in 2013 to prepare a report on The Interrelationship between
Requirements Arising Under the 1971 Ramsar Convention and Principles of
International Water Law, intended to provide the basis for a programme of
applied research on legal protection of freshwater ecosystems. In addition, I
have played a leading role in the development of a coherent body of Independent
Accountability Mechanisms (IAMs) practice on ensuring compliance with the
Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies of

Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) and International Financial Institutions


(IFIs), as acknowledged in several academic studies, e.g. M. Tignino (Faculty of
Law, University of Geneva), Sustainable Development and the Role of Grievance
and Solution-Seeking Mechanisms in Development Banking Operations (Report
prepared for the Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism of the
Inter-American Development Bank, August 2013).

Research Grants
Project Funding
Body Start Date End Date Award
[HEA ENVIRON.MANAGEMENT]{McIntyre O} N Higher Education
authority 01-OCT-00 30-SEP-04 74,396.00
[HEA PRLT3 LEG. MANAGEMENT] {McIntyre} N Higher Education
authority 01-JUN-02 28-FEB-09 77,822.00
EPA Identification of an Appropriate Legislative Regime for the
Remediation of Contaminated Land .." Environment Protection Agency (EPA)
08-JAN-07 07-JAN-10 75,000.00
EPA 'Legal Issues Relating to the Admissability in Evidence of
Environmental Data' Environment Protection Agency (EPA) 01-OCT-07 30-
SEP-10 80,000.00
HEA 'Legal Tools for the Regulation of Corporate Information on Climate
Change' Higher Education authority 01-OCT-07 30-SEP-12
71,149.00
EPA 'Law and the Environment 2013 Conference' Environmental
Protection Agency 01-JAN-13 31-DEC-14 3,000.00
'The Interrelationship between Requirements Arising Under the 1971
Ramsar Convention and Principles of International Water Law' (funded by
Ramsar Convention Secretariat) Other: Not Listed 01-JAN-14 31-DEC-
14 8,200.00
Norwegian Ministry of Environment (Miljverndepartementet)/
University of Bergen 'International Research Workshop on Sovereignty and the
Development of International Water Law' Other: Not Listed 25-OCT-12 26-
OCT-12 35,000.00

http://research.ucc.ie/profiles/B012/omcintyre/Research
The Economics of Ecosystem and Biodiversity (TEEB) for Water
and Wetlands
This report on the Economics of Ecosystem and Biodiversity for Water and Wetlands, launched on 1
February 2013,

http://ramsar.rgis.ch/pdf/TEEB/TEEB_Water&Wetlands_Report_2013.pdf
The Parties to the Convention established the Small Grants Fund (SGF) in 1990
to help developing countries support the conservation and wise use of wetland
resources,
http://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/ramsar_sgf_port
folio_2014_20.pdf
The Convention on Wetlands of International
Importance especially as
Waterfowl Habitat
the Ramsar Convention
http://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/4th_strategic_pl
an_2016_2024_e.pdf

Annotated List of Wetlands of International


Importance
Ireland
The convention entered into force in Ireland on 15 March 1985.

Ireland currently has 45 sites designated as Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Sites), with
a surface area of 66,994 hectares.

https://rsis.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/rsiswp_search/exports/Ramsar-
Sites-annotated-summary-Ireland.pdf?1503247666
National planning tool for the implementation
of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
(And the approved format for National Reports to be
submitted for the 8thMeeting of the Conference of
the Contracting Parties, Spain, 2002)
http://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/ireland_nr2002_
1_2.pdf
Sandymount Strand, South Dublin Bay Ramsar Site
http://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/wwd/13/PDF_repo
rts/wwd2013Ireland1.pdf

World Wetlands Day 2013 Reports: Ireland


2 February 2013
Ireland Sandymount Strand, South Dublin Bay Ramsar Site
http://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/wwd/13/PDF_repo
rts/wwd2013Ireland1.pdf
Proposed Housing Development, ... (as amended) and the European
Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011, ... Irish Water
(IW
http://ecouncil.dlrcoco.ie:9071/documents/s32622/Blank%20Headed%20Item
.pdf
(Irish Water ... to Irelands national policy, which is consistent with the
European Common ... Policy Committee system; and the Community and ...
http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/otherrele
ases/2011/measuringirelandsprogress2011.pdf
General purpose grant allocations for local authorities in 2012 amount to
651m. However, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local
Government has been required to withhold some 15.7m of this amount due to
the level of compliance with payment of the Household Charge in the third
quarter of 2012. In addition, local authorities will continue to retain pension-
related deductions in 2012, together with income from the 200 charge on non-
principal private residences. This will provide an adequate level of funding in
2012 for local authorities to provide a reasonable level of local services to their
communities.
https://www.ihrec.ie/download/pdf/ihrc_annual_report_2011.pdf

IRELAND

UN Questionnaire to Governments on
Implementation of the Beijing
Platform for Action(1995) and the Outcome of the
TwentyThird Special Session of the General
Assembly (2000
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/Review/responses/IRELAND-
English.pdf
Local democracy in Ireland
31 October 2013

Monitoring Committee

Rapporteurs[1]: Andris JAUNSLEINIS, Latvia (L, ILDG[2])

Merita JEGENI YILDIZ, Turkey (R, EPP/CCE)

Recommendation 342 (2013)

Explanatory memorandum

Summary

This is the second report concerning the monitoring of local democracy in


Ireland since 2001. It expresses satisfaction that Ireland has made important
changes since then, and stresses the commitment of the Irish authorities to move
from an almost fully centralised system to a certain level of decentralisation,
through an ambitious Action Programme adopted in October 2012. The report
notes, however, that the constitutional protection of local self-government is
rather weak, local governments can still not be said to manage a substantial
share of public affairs, the administrative supervision of their activities by the
central level remains high and consultations with local authorities and their
associations are not systematic or sufficiently regulated. The report also draws
attention to the very limited powers of local authorities to levy taxes or to set
rates within the limits of the law.

It is recommended to the Irish authorities that they revise their legislation in


order to ensure that the subsidiarity principle is better enshrined and protected
in the law, implement the Action Programme rapidly with a view to devolve
more powers and financial autonomy to local governments and improve the
financial equalisation procedure. The authorities are equally encouraged to
continue in the existing regional development efforts. The Government is invited
to develop the procedures and mechanisms of consultation with local and
regional authorities on matters concerning them directly, so as to entrench these
procedures in the domestic legislation and in practice. Finally, the
recommendation calls on the Irish authorities to sign and ratify the Additional
Protocol to the European Charter of Local Self-Government on the right to
participate in the affairs of a local authority (CETS No. 207).
Local democracy in Ireland

Recommendation 342 (2013)[3]

1. The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe refers to:

a. Article 2, paragraph 1.b. of Statutory Resolution CM/Res(2011)2 of the


Committee of Ministers relating to the Congress of Local and Regional
Authorities of the Council of Europe, which stipulates that one of the aims of the
Congress is to submit proposals to the Committee of Ministers in order to
promote local and regional democracy;

b. Article 2, paragraph 3, of the above-mentioned Statutory Resolution


CM/Res(2011)2, which stipulates that The Congress shall prepare on a regular
basis country-by-country reports on the situation of local and regional
democracy in all member states and in states which have applied to join the
Council of Europe, and shall ensure, in particular, that the principles of the
European Charter of Local Self-Government are implemented;

c. Resolution 307 (2010) REV2 on Procedures for monitoring the obligations and
commitments entered into by the Council of Europe member states in respect of
their ratification of the European Charter of Local Self-Government (ETS
No.122);

d. Recommendation 219 (2007) on the status of capital cities,


Recommendation 132 (2003) on municipal property in the light of the principles
of the European Charter of Local Self-Government;

e. Resolution 299 (2010) of the Congress on Follow-up by the Congress of the


Council of Europe Conference of Ministers responsible for Local and Regional
Government (Utrecht, Netherlands, 16-17 November 2009), which states that
the Congress will use the Council of Europe Reference Framework for Regional
Democracy in its monitoring activities, as well as the reply made by the
Committee of Ministers to the Congress Recommendation 282 (2010)
(CM/CONG(2011)Rec282final, encouraging the governments of member states
to take account of the above mentioned Reference Framework;

f. the previous Recommendation 97 (2001) on local and regional democracy in


Ireland;

g. the explanatory memorandum [CPL(25)5FINAL] on the situation of local democracy in


Ireland, presented by Mr Andris Jaunsleinis, Latvia (L, ILDG)[4] and Mrs Merita Jegeni Yildiz,
Turkey (R, EPP/CCE).

2. The Congress recalls that:

a. Ireland signed the European Charter of Local Self-Government (ETS No.122,


hereafter referred to as the Charter) on 7 November 1997 and ratified it on 14
May 2002 with a declaration to the effect that Ireland intends to confine the
scope of the Charter to the following categories of authorities: county councils,
city councils and town councils;

b. Ireland has not signed the Additional Protocol to the European Charter of
Local Self-Government on the right to participate in the affairs of a local
authority (CETS No. 207):

3. The Congress delegation carried out two official visits to Ireland from 3 to 5 October 2012
and on 3 May 2013.[5]
4. The delegation would like to thank the Permanent Representation of Ireland to the Council
of Europe and the Irish authorities at central, regional and local levels, the associations of
local and regional authorities, experts and other interlocutors for their valuable cooperation
at different stages of the monitoring procedure and for the information conveyed to the
delegation.

5. The Congress:

a. notes with satisfaction that important changes have been accomplished since
the last recommendation and that the basic legal framework is now established
for local and partly also for regional authorities;

b. takes note that the local authorities in Ireland, in spite of various structural
and financial issues, have a strong connection to their citizens and deliver
services adequately;

c. acknowledges the commitment of the Irish authorities to move from a very


centralised system to a certain level of decentralisation;

d. welcomes the Action Programme adopted in October 2012 by the Irish


Government, which provides a clear commitment on the part of the Government
to expand the local governments responsibilities.

6. The Congress expresses its concern that:

a.the constitutional protection of local self-government is rather weak and that


the principle of subsidiarity is not properly reflected and guaranteed in the
legislation;

b.local governments do not manage a substantial share of public affairs: local


authorities are still waiting for a strong decentralisation effort and the delegation
of relevant competences and financial independence to the local and regional
level;

c. consultations with local authorities and their associations are neither


systematic nor sufficiently regulated to allow the latter to be involved in the
decision-making process on matters which concern them and, in the present
context, to make an input into the proposed reform;
d. the administrative supervision of local authorities activities by the central
level remains disproportionate and, under this system, the powers given to local
authorities are not full and exclusive;

e. the equalisation mechanism is not transparent and, although local


governments have the formal freedom to adopt budgets, such freedom is
severely limited in practice;

f. the scale of local taxes and the power of local authorities to determine the rates
are very limited;

g. conditions of office of local elected representatives are insufficiently regulated


by general legislation (Labour Code).

7. In the light of the above, the Congress requests that the Committee of
Ministers invite the Irish authorities to take account of the following
recommendations:

a. to revise their legislation in order to ensure that the subsidiarity principle is


better enshrined and protected in the law and to promote this basic principle in
practice in the Irish public administration system;

b. to implement the Action Programme rapidly in order to devolve more powers


and responsibilities to local and regional authorities and delegate relevant
competences and financial resources to the local and regional levels;

c. to develop the procedures and mechanisms of consultation with local and


regional authorities on matters concerning them directly both in legislation and
in practice, taking into account the criteria provided by Article 4 para.6 of the
Charter, namely, in due time and in an appropriate way;

d. take the necessary measures to amend existing legislation which allows the
central government to intervene in local decision making and ensure that the
Action Programme does not increase the level of supervision even more through
the establishment of a new additional National Oversight Office to monitor the
efficiency of local authorities including, inter alia, their compliance with national
objectives and policies;

e. to review the equalisation mechanism in order to render it transparent and


ensure that the rules pertaining thereto are established in consultation with the
local authorities;

f. to ensure that, in practice, local governments have the power to levy taxes and
determine effectively the rates within the limits of the law;

g. to consider establishing a clear and specific legislative basis regarding the


conditions of office of local elected representatives, particularly as related to
rules for private employers to provide free time to elected officials for
participation in local matters;
h. to encourage the Irish Government to consider opening the debate on further
developing the regional tier of government, with the possibility of putting in
place a system of direct election of representatives and real responsibilities in
the delivery of regional public services;

i. to invite the Irish Government to sign the Additional Protocol to the European
Outline Convention on Trans-frontier Co-operation between Territorial
Communities or Authorities (ETS No. 159) and the Additional Protocol to the
European Charter of Local Self-Government on the right to participate in the
affairs of a local authority (CETS No. 207).
Local democracy in Ireland
Explanatory memorandum

Table of contents

1. ... INTRODUCTION: AIM AND SCOPE OF THE VISIT, TERMS OF REFERENCE

2. ... POLITICAL CONTEXT

2.1. International situation and relations with neighbouring countries

2.2. Domestic political situation and elections

2.3. Previous report and recommendations

3. ... HONOURING OF OBLIGATIONS AND COMMITMENTS

3.1. Constitution and legislative developments

3.1.1. Constitutional developments

3.1.2. Local Government Act 2001

3.1.3. Policy Paper 2012: Action Programme for Effective Local Government

3.2. Local Government Structure: Functions and responsibilities of local governments

3.2.1. Structure and Competences

3.2.2. Reserved functions

3.2.3. Executive Functions

3.2.4. Sectoral functions

3.2.5. Remuneration of elected representatives

3.3. Financial resources

3.4. Territorial issues

3.5. Relations between central and local authorities

3.6. Supervision of local authorities

3.7. Status of the capital city

3.8. Autonomy and freedom of association


3.9. Regional democracy: The Reference Framework for Regional Democracy

4. ... ANALYSIS OF THE SITUATION OF LOCAL DEMOCRACY IN LIGHT OF THE EUROPEAN CHARTER ON
LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT ON AN ARTICLE BY ARTICLE BASIS

5..... CONCLUSIONS

Appendix 1 Information on the implementation of human rights at local and regional level

Appendix 2 Programme of the Congress monitoring visit to Ireland (Part 1, 35 October 2012)

Appendix 3 Programme of the Congress monitoring visit to Ireland (Part 2, 3 May 2013)
1. INTRODUCTION: AIM AND SCOPE OF THE VISIT, TERMS
OF REFERENCE
1. In accordance with Article 2 of Statutory Resolution CM/Res (2011)2 of the
Committee of Ministers, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the
Council of Europe (hereafter "the Congress") regularly prepares reports on the
state of local and regional democracy in the member states and candidate
countries.

2. Ireland joined the Council of Europe on 5 May 1949. It signed the European
Charter for Local Self-Government (ETS No. 122, hereafter "the Charter") on 7
November 1997 and ratified it on 14 May 2002, with a declaration to the effect
that Ireland intends to confine the scope of the Charter to the following
categories of authorities: county councils, city councils and town councils.

3. Ireland has not signed the Additional Protocol to the European Charter of
Local Self-Government on the right to participate in the affairs of a local
authority (CETS No. 207), the Additional Protocol to the European Outline
Convention on Trans-frontier Co-operation between Territorial Communities or
Authorities (ETS No. 159), or the Convention on the Participation of Foreigners
in Public Life at Local Level (ETS No. 144).

4. A first monitoring visit was carried out in Ireland in two parts, in January and
March 2001 respectively, resulting in Recommendation 97 (2001)1 on local
democracy in Ireland.

5. The present report relates to the visits of the Congress to Ireland from 3 to 5
October 2012 and on 3 May 2013, to monitor the situation of local and regional
democracy in this country on the basis of the Charter. The Monitoring Committee
appointed Michael Cohen (Malta, L, SOC) and Merita Jegeni Yldz (Turkey, R,
EPP/CCE) as co-rapporteurs on local and regional democracy, respectively. They
were assisted by Professor Juraj Nemec, consultant, member of the Group of
Independent Experts on the European Charter of Local Self-Government and the
Secretariat of the Congress.

6. The Congress delegation met with national authorities including the Minister
for the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government (DECLG),
members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Environment, Culture and the
Gaeltacht, the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform and
the Joint Committee on Investigations, Oversight and Petitions, the Ministry for
Public Expenditure and Reform, the Office of the Ombudsman, the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court of Ireland and the Local Government Audit Services. There
were also meetings with the associations of local authorities including the
Association of County and City Councils of Ireland, the Association of Municipal
Authorities of Ireland, the Association of Irish Regions, the Local Authority
Members Association and the County and City Managers' Association/Local
Government Management Agency. The rapporteurs also met with the mayors,
managers and councillors of Dublin, Cork, County Cork, County Meath and Trim
as well as with specialists on issues of local government. The detailed
programmes are appended to the present report.

7. The co-rapporteurs wish to thank the Permanent Representation of Ireland to


the Council of Europe and all those whom it met during the visit for their
readiness to assist the delegation and for the information they so willingly
supplied. It also thanks the Irish delegation to the Congress and all the
associations of local and regional authorities for contributing to the organisation
and smooth running of the visit.

2. POLITICAL CONTEXT
2.1. International situation and relations with neighbouring countries

8. The Republic of Ireland (Ireland in the following text), which became


independent from the United Kingdom (UK) in 1922, is counted today among
Europes stable democracies. It is a member of the Council of Europe (since
1949), the OSCE (since 1973) and of the European Union (since 1973). It is not a
member of NATO but participates in the latters Partnership for Peace
programme since 1999.

9. The UK is Ireland's largest single trading partner. Other key trading partners
are the United States, Germany and France. UK exports to Ireland, at an
estimated 17.1 billion GBP in 2011, makes Ireland the UKs fifth largest export
market. Inversely, according to the UK Foreign Office figures, at the end of 2009,
Ireland was ranked as the UKs ninth largest investor. The first ever State Visit by
a British monarch that took place in May 2011 was hailed as a sign of the strong
bilateral relations between the two countries.

10. As regards Irelands relations with Northern Ireland which is part of the UK,
there is regular contact through the North South Ministerial Council (which
brings together Irish Ministers and Ministers from the Northern Ireland
Executive) and through the British Irish Council (which brings together British
and Irish Ministers and their counterparts from Scotland, Wales, Northern
Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands).

11. The economy of Ireland is a modern knowledge economy, focusing on


services and high-tech industries and dependent on trade, industry and
investment. It was characterised by rapid economic growth until the recent
financial crisis. The countrys economy expanded until 2007 (the so-called
Celtic Tiger phenomenon), driven mostly by construction and consumer
spending, particularly after 2002. Migrant workers from the new EU member
states provided some of the workforce for the construction sector and fed the
domestic housing sector.

12. The 2008 crisis influenced Ireland significantly, especially its banking sector,
and borrowing from international organisations became necessary. The near
collapse of the property market put pressure on both the banking system and the
government finances. In 2010, Ireland received 85 billion euros of financial
support from the EU and IMF and some additional bilateral loans from UK,
Sweden and Denmark.

13. In 2011, the public balance deficit was 13.1% of GDP, the largest of any EU
member State. Government debt had increased to just over 108% of GDP, a huge
increase when compared to only 25% of GDP in 2007.[6] According to the Central
Statistics Office of Ireland, current expenditure by central and local government
as a percentage of GDP has continuously increased since 2002, reaching 39% of
the total in 2011. It has been estimated that only 38% of this total concerns the
banking sector, while 50% has been used to fund government services (including
local government).[7] Eurostat gives the share of local government in the total
public debt for 2011 as less than 5 %. This cannot however be interpreted as a
positive sign, given that local government in Ireland is heavily centralised and is
funded by central grants.[8]

14. The important share of government spending in the public debt has
important repercussions on the future of local government in Ireland. The
Government has taken a number of measures to restore the public finances,
leading to significant reductions in public sector pay, social welfare and capital
expenditure since 2008. Budget cuts in 2009 included wage reductions for all
public servants. The policy paper published in October 2012, which restructures
the sub-county level of local government, is aiming at reducing the number of
councillors from 1627 to approximately 950. The objective is to create an
effective, accountable and cohesive system of local government in which a range
of important decisions are made by elected members at sub-county level. The
existing 80 town councils, whose replacement by municipal district councils
accounts for the quoted reduction in councillor numbers, together represent
14% of the population of Ireland. The reduction can be considered to be
warranted both in terms of eliminating duplication and in the context of a public
sector reform and consolidation generally.

2.2. Domestic political situation and elections

15. Ireland is a parliamentary democracy. It has a population of 4.58 million


(2011 census). Its capital, Dublin, houses a quarter of the total population
(estimated 1.2 million in its metropolitan area). Irish is the first official language,
although English, the second official language is almost universally used. The
population is predominantly Roman Catholic (86.6%).

16. Its chief of state is President Michael D. Higgins since 29 October 2011. He
was elected by popular vote for a seven-year term and is eligible for a second
term. The head of government is the Prime Minister (Taoiseach), Enda Kenny
(Fine Gael), since 9 March 2011.

17. The National Parliament (Oireachtas) is bicameral. The Senate (Seanad


ireann) has 60 seats. 43 members (senators) are elected by panels representing
vocational interests (Culture and Education, Agriculture, Labour, Industry and
Commerce and Public Administration); 6 are elected by the graduates of two
universities (National University of Ireland and the University of Dublin - Trinity
College); the remaining 11 are nominated by the Prime Minister. Senators serve
five-year terms.

18. The House of Representatives (Dil ireann) has 166 seats. Its members
(Teachta Dla or TDs) are elected by popular vote (of citizens who are 18 or
older) on the basis of proportional representation (single transferable vote
system) to serve maximum five-year terms. A Bill to reduce the total number of
members from 226 to 158 is currently being considered by the Oireachtas.

19. The members of local authorities (counties, cities, boroughs, towns) are also
elected by proportional representation every five years. All Irish citizens and
residents are eligible for election provided that they are resident in Ireland on
polling day and are 18 years of age or older. Holders of certain offices and
persons guilty of certain crimes are disqualified from holding office. Councillors
come mainly from the established political parties. Regional council members
are not directly elected; they are nominated by the local authorities that make up
the regional bodies (8 regional authorities and 2 regional assemblies)

20. Currently, constituencies elect between three and five TDs (Section 6 of the
Electoral Act 1997 places a maximum size of five members on constituencies).
The Constitution requires that constituency boundaries be reviewed at least
once in every twelve years, so that boundaries may be redrawn to accommodate
changes in population. Boundary changes are currently drafted by an
independent commission (required to refer to the most recent Census of Ireland
when considering boundary changes), and its recommendations are usually
followed.

Recent election results

21. The last parliamentary elections were held in 2011. The voter turnout in the
43 constituencies was around 70%.

22. The most important parties in the House of Representatives are the Fine Gael
(36% of first preference votes, 76 TDs), Labour Party (19.4% of votes, 37 TDs),
Fianna Fil (17.4% of votes, 20 TDs), Sinn Fin (9.9% of votes, 14 TDs) and 15
independent TDs (12.6% of votes). The current structure of seats in the Senate
is: Fine Gael (20 senators), Fianna Fil (14 senators), Labour Party (12
senators), Sinn Fin (3 senators) and 11 senators nominated by the Taoiseach.

23. The last local elections were held on 5 June 2009. The political structure of
the elected local officials is similar to the results of national elections. The voter
turnout was 57.7%, rather lower than the general election turnout. Including
seats for all councils (county, city, borough and town), Fine Gael won 556 seats,
Fianna Fil 407, Labour 231, Sinn Fin 127 and independents 275 seats.

24. As regards the presence of women in elected positions, the 2011 general
election yielded a record number of women TDs: 25 women have been elected,
meaning that the parliament will be 15.1% female (in the previous parliament,
13.8%, i.e. 23 TDs, were women). The Electoral (Political Funding) Act 2012
provides for the payment of state funding to political parties being conditional
on parties having at least 30% women and 30% men candidates at the next
general election. Seven years from the general election where this provision first
applies, this will rise to 40%.

25. In the 2009 local elections, 17.1% of all candidates were women. It must be
noted that the smaller parties all failed to meet the gender quota targets that
they had adopted for these elections. In total, 165 female candidates were
successful in the City and County Council elections (approx. 18% of the total)
with 56 of the successful candidates representing Fine Gael, 33 representing
Fianna Fil, 30 representing the Labour Party, 12 representing Sinn Fin and the
other 15 from the smaller parties and independents grouping.[9]
2.3. Previous report and recommendations

26. The previous recommendation on local democracy in Ireland dates back to


2001, i.e. before the ratification of the Charter. The recommendation welcomed
all proposed legal changes to improve the status of local governments in Ireland.

27. The recommendation included several notes, observations and


recommendations concerning the Irish Government and parliamentary
authorities. The salient points are:

- the minor involvement of local authorities in education, health and public transport and no
statutory input to policing matters which may relegate them to a marginal role in a long run;

- highly centralised system of financing of local government allow for limited discretion to local
authorities to determine local service levels and related expenditure levels;

- the need to grant local authorities their own taxation revenue so that a substantial proportion of
local resources can be derived from it;

- the relatively weaker role of the elected mayor (Cathaoirleach) and the sometimes stronger
position of the city manager;

- the lack of satisfactory remuneration for elected members of local government who mostly
work on a part-time basis;

- the limited participation by women (16% of all elected members), young people and wage-
earners in local government policy-making;

- the impossibility of removing the county/city managers without the sanction of the Minister
for the Environment and Local Government;

- the definition of elected councils functions as reserved functions which are specified in
statute law, all other functions executive functions being performed by the managers;

- the prolific use of regulations which might not be in harmony with the spirit of the Charter
(Article 4, paragraph 2, and Article 8, paragraph 2);

- the weak legislative foundations and functions of the regional authorities; and

- the invitation to sign and ratify various additional protocols and conventions: Additional
Protocol to the European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation between
Territorial Communities or Authorities (ETS No. 159); the Protocol No. 2 to the European
Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation between Territorial Communities or
Authorities (ETS No. 169); the Convention on the Participation of Foreigners in Public Life at
Local Level (ETS No. 144); the European Landscape Convention (ETS No. 176).

28. Following the recommendation, the Charter was ratified on 14 May 2002,
with a declaration to the effect that Ireland intends to confine the scope of the
Charter to the following categories of authorities: county councils, city councils
and town councils.

29. The Local Government Act 2001 (No. 37 of 2001; the LGA in the following
text) was enacted by the Oireachtas on 21 July 2001. Most of the provisions of
the LGA entered into force on 1 January 2002 (Chapter 3 on direct elections of
mayors was repealed by the LGA 2003). It introduced some important and
expected changes in line with the recommendations (for more details see the
following sections). It was amended several times between 2001 and 2012 (for
example the amendment of the dual mandate in 2003; introduction of the
household charge in 2011).

30. In 2008 the Governments Green Paper on Local Government reform


Stronger Local Democracy Options for Change was published, the central
theme being the strengthening of local democracy, to make it more transparent
and more responsive to its customers. One of the core proposals of this
consultation document was the direct election of a Mayor of Dublin, which has
not yet been implemented.

31. Despite the many positive changes, the rapporteurs would like to underline
that several important local democracy issues have remained unresolved within
the intervening years numerous problems from the view of Charter principles
remaining, particularly as regards the structures, the financing and the
competences of local authorities in Ireland. Since the publication of the
Programme for Government in March 2011, some extensive policy formulation
work has taken place, which led to the adoption by the Government of a range of
decisions for reform as set out in the Action Programme for Effective Local
Government, published on 16 October 2012 (Action Programme in the
following text). This document was regrettably not available to the rapporteurs
during their visit and was received later. The rapporteurs had the possibility to
discuss it with representatives of the Government and the Associations during
their second visit in May 2013.

32. One particularly relevant issue is that the representatives of local


government four different associations (Association of County and City
Councils of Ireland-ACCC, Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland-AMAI,
Association of Irish Regions-AIR, and Local Authority Members Association-
LAMA) do not co-operate on a systemic basis to provide a common vision and
voice with regard to the local government reform proposals in Ireland. The
rapporteurs have taken note that the Government plans to facilitate the merging
of the ACCC and the AMAI after the local government elections in 2014 and
has declared that, if necessary, provision will be made in legislation for there
to be only one formally recognised representative organisation of local
government councils. As regards the other two associations, the LAMA
primarily represents the individual interests of members rather than their
corporate role, while the AIR members are also represented by the other
bodies by virtue of the fact that they are drawn from membership of local
authorities.

33. The Action Programme deals predominantly with structural changes (see
Section 3.2 for a description of the policy proposals) and proffers little (in the
short term) with regard to decentralisation, either regarding competences or
finances. However, the rapporteurs find it encouraging that the programme
strives to set out a clear rationale for stronger local government.
34. The rapporteurs have analysed the existing situation in the light of the
previous recommendation and have come up with conclusions which highlight
the progress that has been made but also reflect the many issues that remain.

3. HONOURING OF OBLIGATIONS AND COMMITMENTS


3.1. Constitution and legislative developments

3.1.1. Constitutional developments

35. Constitutional recognition of the role and function of local government


appeared first in the Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution in 1999 (Article
28A). This amendment, approved by referendum (with over a million votes cast),
recognises the role of local government in providing a forum for the democratic
representation of local communities and for exercising and performing at the
local level powers and functions conferred by law.

36. This is a fairly low level of constitutional protection. Formally, it means that
local government functions must be expressly or impliedly conferred by
legislation, and if they are not, they are considered to be ultra vires, i.e. beyond
the powers of the local authorities. Broadly speaking, local authorities right to
exercise any power or function which is necessary for local development and
that does not contravene with general legislation, is significantly limited. The
Government has argued that the power of general competence granted to local
authorities in 1991 allow them to take action in the interests of their areas, so
that they do not have to adduce specific statutory authority for all actions.

37. Ireland has a dualist legal system, i.e. international agreements are not part
of domestic law, save by law of Parliament (Article 29, section 6). Therefore,
although the Charter is binding on the State, it is not enforceable in domestic
courts. Local authorities could sue the Government but there are no
constitutional or legal guarantees for subsidiarity. Judicial review is the
instrument available to those who wish to complain.

38. The fact that the principle of subsidiarity is not properly (if at all) reflected in
either the legislation or in practice has historical and political sources. The trust
of all actors in the advantages to be derived from subsidiarity and the
government and public trust in the capacity of local officials seems to be limited.
The Governments opinion is that devolvement and further decentralisation can
be realised only in long term perspective because of this fact.

39. The rapporteurs had the impression that, at national level, there is a strong
tendency to keep the guidance of local government affairs in central government
hands, with the argument that this is necessary in order to avoid
mismanagement or clientelist tendencies and to guarantee efficiency. From the
Governments point of view, systemic weaknesses in the structures, operational
efficiency, governance and financing of the local government system as well as
some instances of failure to perform certain functions adequately (resulting in
the removal of certain functions from the elected councils) contributed to a lack
of confidence and credibility in the local government system. This view of the
situation is strongly contested by local authorities the rapporteurs had the
opportunity to meet, who insisted on the fact that local authorities are efficient,
reliable and willing to carry out functions that are within a local authority
mandate in most European countries (transport, hospitals, education, water
management, local tax collection, etc.). The two points of view are fully in
opposition.

40. Challenges to the constitutionality of provisions in the LGA 2001 by a


member of parliament (against prohibition on dual mandates as both a Member
of Parliament and councillor) and by an ordinary citizen (against the system of
replacing an elected member of a local authority by an unelected replacement)
were unsuccessful.[10] However, leave was given in a judicial review case to
challenge the constitutionality of ministerial regulations, making it exceptionally
difficult for a considerable number of people to run for election in local
authorities.

41. The Constitutional Court has had cases concerning local authorities. For
example, the Pullen case concerned a procedure under the housing act of 1966.
The question that concerned the local authorities was, whether evicting a person
from their flat (social housing) was in accordance with the Constitution and the
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The decision of the
Supreme Court was negative on the ground that the Constitution protected
dwelling rights.

3.1.2. Local Government Act 2001

42. The LGA 2001 was enacted, inter alia, to ratify the Charter, as international
conventions can become part of Irish law only when transposed into national
legislation. It also widened the discretion and generally strengthened the
position of local governments by the introduction of a power of general
competence, the recognition of the representational role of local authority
members, statutory recognition of local government associations and a
recognition of the distinctive nature of local authority membership - all
measures designed to align the Irish system with the provisions of the Charter.

43. However, the law grants the DECLG a major role in the oversight and policy
formation in relation to local government activities and overall responsibility for
financing local government, the promotion of local government legislation and
the transposition of most EU law relating to local government. The DECLG
exercises a great deal of control over local government based on the argument
that it provides an important part of local government finance and ensures
service delivery standards (such arguments, at least partly, contradict the
principle of subsidiarity).[11] The Government have explained that oversight in
this context involves ensuring consistency with national policy as well as
maximising effectiveness and value for money in national programmes operated
by local authorities, and does not involve micro-management of local authority
responsibilities. They aim to further delegate authority under the Action
Programme (Table 2 in Chapter 4).

44. Reform of local government has been on the political agenda for the last 40
years and Ministers of DECLG have promised reform with little result. The 2008
consultation paper (Green Paper) aimed at strengthening local democracy and to
make it more transparent, but it remained unimplemented. There is an almost
universal recognition that radical changes are needed more than ever and that
government in Ireland remains highly centralised. The Action programme of
2012 is a decision paper that addresses this as a key objective.

3.1.3. Policy Paper 2012: Action Programme for Effective Local


Government

45. The introductory part of this document states: The role of local government
in Ireland is narrow. Some traditional functions have moved to specialist
organisations in recent years due to necessities of scale, resources and expertise.
To make the most of its resources and capacities, the role of local government
will be strengthened, having regard to relevant criteria, with a wider range of
suitable functions. Its role will be refocused, particularly towards economic,
social and community development. Central government involvement in
operational details of local services will be further reduced and administrative
controls and procedures streamlined. Local authority capacity to undertake
services for a wider range of sectors will also be fully utilised.

46. Among the focal points of the Action Programme, the change of local
government structures that has not been updated since the 19th Century is
primordial. The programme is proposing to renew those structures radically, by
establishing a system of sub-county governance in the form of municipal district
councils (abolishing the town councils), resulting also in a substantial reduction
in the number of councillors. The legislation concerning territorial changes is
still to be voted in the Parliament for amendments mainly founded on
effectiveness and economy arguments.

47. Other issues stressed by the Action Programme are accountability,


transparency, reserved powers (especially to ensure that councillors will no
longer be allowed to direct the executive in respect of planning functions) and
efficiency: the 830 million euros in savings made by local government since 2008
is mentioned, as well as the expected 511 million euros of savings identified in
the Report of the Local Government Efficiency Review Group. The subject of
external scrutiny also takes an important place. It is proposed to set up a new
National Oversight and Audit Commission with external expertise, which should
provide performance monitoring with a focus on key performance indicators,
customer service and comparative performance of local authorities.

48. The reform also addresses recognised weaknesses such as duplication,


fragmentation, isolation, inconsistency and lack of powers and resources of local
authorities, in order to bring about stronger sub-county governance on a
devolved basis for the whole county territory, in line with the principle of
subsidiarity.

49. The details of the changes to the territorial structure are given below under
Section 3.4.

50. The Government intends to convene a Forum of Dublin for elected


representatives to consider proposals for the future governance of the Dublin
area. In this context, a plebiscite will be held in June 2014 to see if the citizens of
Dublin are in favour of the establishment of a directly elected mayor for their
city.

51. The principle change regarding competences is the devolving of one core
own activity to the local level. The Government is also considering delegating
certain powers currently held by various government departments to local
authorities. These include, initially, the management of Tourist Information
Offices, smaller sea ports, piers and lights, coastal navigation aids, the delivery of
an efficient and effective integrated local and rural transport programme, local
sports partnerships, management of some property on behalf of the National
Parks and Wildlife Service, provision of certain transport infrastructure and
subsidies in respect of off-shore islands, flood risk management measures
through local authorities, and certain functions in relation to the assignment and
use of bus stops.

52. As regards housing, the Government maintains the responsibility for


implementing schemes for rents, allocations and tenant purchase at local level
but may devolve functions from national to local level in relation to what is now
Rent Supplement (currently operated by the Department of Social Protection).
They may also give certain functions to local authorities regarding the regulation
of the voluntary housing sector. It should be noted that, at present, policy
decisions at local level, for example the adoption of housing services plans,
allocations policy, rent schemes and tenant purchase schemes, are reserved
functions of the elected councils, within national policy parameters. In recent
years, there has been increased delegation in housing programmes (for example,
an allocation-based funding system for homelessness (see Action Programme,
Chapter 4, Table 2).

53. Waste management is now being outsourced to private enterprise. The


Government promises to highlight the importance of consultation with the
elected representatives. The Irish households will start paying charges for water
services as of 2014 but the collection of charges will not be a local authority
competence. It has been decided to establish an independent State owned
company for this task (Irish Water). According to the Action Programme, some
aspects of the administration of the Water Services Investment Programme will
be delegated to local authorities, in order to reduce the number of approvals
required from the DECLG, although the role of the environmental protection
agency and the local authorities (either individually or in regional groupings) is
essentially limited to waste management planning and environmental
regulation.
54. The Government approved the introduction of a new local property tax, to be
administered by the Revenue Commissioners and incorporating discretion on
the part of local authorities to increase or decrease the rate of tax, with effect
from 1 January 2015 onwards. This is seen as an important moment which paves
the way for a more self-reliant and responsible local government by creating a
link between local revenues and local expenditure.

55. The Finance (Local Property Tax) Act 2012 (Part 17, para. 157)provides that,
as of 2014, in each financial year, the Minister for Finance shall pay an amount
into the Local Government Fund equivalent to the local property tax paid
(including any interest paid thereon) into the Central Fund during that
year. The Minister for DECLG will distribute all Local Property Tax receipts
received into the Local Government Fund in any year to local authorities in the
form of General Purpose Grants. 80% from revenues will be allocated to their
place of origin, and 20 % to others via the equalisation mechanism.

56. The Government is also proposing to establish a National Oversight Office to


monitor the efficiency and effectiveness of local authorities including, inter alia,
their compliance with national objectives and policies. This institution will
supplement the oversight function already undertaken by the Local Government
Audit Service (of the DECLG), the Ombudsman and the parliamentary Joint
Committee on Investigations, Oversight and Petitions that deal with complaints
related administrative issues concerning local authorities.

3.2. Local government structure: functions and responsibilities of local


governments

3.2.1. Structure and competences

57. A total of 114 local authorities were established under the LGA 2001: There
are 29 administrative counties with councils. In addition, there are five cities,
each with their own city council: Dublin, Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford.
Within these areas there are 5 borough and 75 town councils.

58. Each council has a mayor who chairs the meetings of the elected council and
also fulfils a ceremonial role. Tasks which are ordinarily reserved for mayors
who are political leaders elsewhere in Europe are shared out between the
managers (appointed by the council) and the council itself (the reserved
functions). The mayors of the cities of Dublin and Cork are called Lord Mayor,
an honorific title.

59. Local authorities are responsible for implementing legislation on


environment and matters such as land use planning, waste management, water
and wastewater services (shortly expected to be transferred to the central
authority), building control, many roads, some educational services and public
libraries, fire services and public safety, social and affordable housing, the
provision of recreational and social amenities, aspects of protection of natural
heritage, flood protection and climate change adaption and mitigation strategies.
The core service expenditure areas are social housing, water supply, waste
management and road maintenance.

60. Under the Garda Siochna Act 2005, Joint Policing Committees, which consist
of representatives of the relevant local authority, Garda Siochna (i.e. the
national police force), and community and voluntary sector representatives)
exist in each city, council and local authority area. The committees, which are
chaired by a member of the local authority, facilitate greater consultation,
cooperation and synergy on policing and crime issues between the parties
involved.

61. There are also 8 NUTS[12] III level and 2 NUTS II level regions (for regional
structures, see Section 3.9 for details.

3.2.2. Reserved functions

62. Local government functions are classified into reserved functions and
executive functions.

63. Only the elected members of local authorities can perform the reserved
functions. Chairs and vice-chairs of councils can be removed from office by
resolution of at least three quarters of the elected members. The LGA 2001
provides that a town council may apply to the Minister to dissolve a town
council.

64. It is opportune to reiterate here that local authorities right to exercise any
power or function which is necessary for local development and that does not
contravene with general legislation, is still formally significantly limited.
Section 69 of the Act mandates local authorities to consult with other local
authorities and some other bodies and, in carrying out their functions, to have
regard to Government or Ministerial polices and the need for (i) a high standard
of environmental and heritage protection (ii)the need for sustainable
development and (iii) the need to promote social inclusion. Moreover, section
69(4) expressly provides that the wide powers conferred by sections 63 to 67 do
not empower local authorities to exercise or enjoy any function prohibited by
any legislation or to do not excuse them for failure to comply with any legislative
pre-condition to, or restriction on, the exercise of any function.

65. Reserved functions embrace the key policy and financial decisions of a local
authority: power to determine the policy of the local authority, to make land-use
plans, to enact bye-laws, to confer civic honours, to adopt the annual budget and
corporate plan of the local authority and to make an application to the Minister
to change the boundaries of the local authority area. They also confer upon the
council the power to direct the manager in the performance of executive
functions. This position of primacy of the elected council is intended to be
further enhanced by measures provided for in the Action Programme which
foresees a greater oversight role for elected members, for example in the
context of audits and a proposed power to hold other service providers to
account.
3.2.3. Executive functions

66. Executive functions are performed by city and county managers. The elected
members have extensive powers to control the manner in which managerial
powers are exercised. However, in cases where elected members purported to
use these powers to direct county managers, for example by giving planning
permissions for developments which materially contravened the provisions of
development plans or for zoning towns without subjecting the proposed zoning
to required strategic environmental impact assessment procedures, the courts
held that the county and city mangers where not obliged to comply with these
directions when it was unlawful to do so.

67. Managers are formally appointed by the elected members of the local
authority. Such appointment is done on the basis of the recommendation from
the Public Appointments Service (a central recruitment agency for the public
service) following an open competitive process and normally only one candidate
is proposed take or not. They can be suspended or dismissed by resolution of
the elected members, although Ministerial consent is required for their
dismissal. The position of manager is filled by virtue of a recommendation of
the Public Appointments Service, and not by a local competitive procedure.

3.2.4. Sectoral functions

68. These functions are conferred under a vast amount of sectoral legislation: for
example, air management and waste management functions are carried out
under the Air Pollution Act 1987, and planning functions under the Planning and
Development Acts 2000-2010, etc. Local authorities also have extensive public
safety functions, including protection from fire both preventive and through
operating the fire brigades and promoting water safety and road safety. They
are major providers of recreation and amenity infrastructure and they provide
and maintain most public parks. Their main social function is housing.

69. All local authorities also have bye-law-making powers both general (in the
interests of the common good of the local community) and for various specific
purposes. The range of Irish local authority functions is quite narrow. They have
no role in providing public transport or personal social services, play an indirect
role in policing through joint policing committees, which are chaired by local
authority members, and have only a limited role in health and education.

70. The overall situation today, in the rapporteurs opinion, indicates that we are
in the presence of a system of local government that is a combination of local
self-government and state administration offices under one roof. How this
situation will evolve after the implementation of the (comprehensive and
ambitious) Action Programme remains to be seen.

3.2.5. Remuneration of elected representatives

71. In Ireland, most members of councils work for local self-governments on a


part time basis and they receive financial compensations close to the general
income level in the country for their category (their representational payment
is a specified proportion of the salary of a member of Seanad ireann. Allowances
for elected representatives of city and county councils are estimated around 16
724 euros per councillor, per annum.[13] They also receive allowances for
chairing special policy committees and to cover the cost of attending local
authority meetings. The total may reach around 35 000 euros per year.
Comparatively, the average annual pay in Ireland is around 19,000 euros
according to the OECD index. There is an additional allowance for being a mayor.
These sums are taxable and subject to social insurance contributions.

72. Councillors may also secure appointment to bodies such as Regional


Assemblies, Regional Authorities, education committees etc. which are external
to the councils and which pay travel rates and allowances from their own
budgets. Since May 2000, they can avail of a retirement gratuity which amounts
to 3345 euros per year of service (with smaller sums added for each year prior
to May 2000), entitling them to a gratuity payment of around 45,000 euros (the
maximum grant being payable after 20 years of service).

73. As regards mayoral allowances, each authority can set its own amounts. It is
understood that the Cork City and Dublin City mayors have allowances of the
order of 120,000 and 80,000 euros respectively. For county councils generally,
the amounts are of the order of 20,000 to 40,000 euros. The mayoral allowance
is taxable, but on a modified scale, less onerous than that of standard income tax.

74. The volume of work done by councillors having increased with time, there
are more and more full time councillors. For elected representatives working for
the private sector, the situation is quite difficult.

3.3. Financial resources

75. Local authorities play a significant role in the economy where they are
responsible for the expenditure of some 12 billion euros annually (7 billion
euros of which is capital investment mainly on housing and water supplies, with
the balance of 5 billion euros devoted to financing current expenditure). In
relative terms, this represents the equivalent of over 6% of the countrys GDP
(some other sources provide a slightly higher percentage). However, this
proportion is below the average found in developed countries. In 2012,
expenditure of some 6.4 billion euros is anticipated: 2 billion in capital
investment and 4.4 billion budgeted to finance current expenditure).

76. In relative terms, the main revenue sources to finance current expenditure
by the local authorities are as follows as published in the 2012 Budget (concrete
proportions of these sources in concrete budgets differ, according to the type
and size of local government):

a. Commercial Rates (34%): Commercial Rates are property tax levied by local
authorities. Rates are levied annually by the authorities who have exclusive
rating jurisdiction within their own areas. As a general rule, rates are levied
on the occupiers of commercial and industrial properties.
b. Specific Central Government Grants/Subsidies (22%): Grants and subsidies
are paid by the Central Government to local authorities for specific services
and /schemes that they undertake on behalf of a range of Government
Departments.
c. Receipts from the provision of goods or services (27 %): Local authorities
have powers to charge for services they provide, for example, commercial
water charges, housing rents, waste charges, parking charges, and planning
application fees.

d. General Purposes Grants/Pension Related Deductions (17%): This fund


provides lump sum grants to local governments and its sources are motor tax
and household charge receipts.

77. In 2009, property tax on secondary houses (Non-Principal Private


Residence Tax) was introduced as a lump sum tax. This is a local tax, the
proceeds of which are retained by local authorities as a direct source of finance
to meet the cost of local services. In 2012, another centrally determined lump
sum charge was introduced at the level of 100 EUR per dwelling (Household
Charge). The revenue from this tax is not a direct source for the local budgets (it
is transferred to the Local Government Fund to be used for equalisation
purposes). The future Local Property Tax announced in the Action Programme is
also expected to be centrally collected (committed to the Local Government
Fund) and not directly distributed to local budgets. In any event, in the short
term, it will not increase local authority revenues, since an equivalent amount
will be deducted from the grants allocated to the local authority concerned. The
Government explains that local authorities will have discretion to vary the rate
after 1 January 2015 to take account of requirements in their area.

78. As regards property, a local authority may own, buy, sell or inherit property.
It may enter into a contract with any person in respect of any matter relating to
its functions.

79. The fiscal role and functions of the various regional authorities are marginal
from the point of view of national finance (but significant in re-allocation of EU
resources).

80. The rapporteurs learned that partnership companies had been set up in the
1990s to strengthen local authorities. The Government established an
intermediate company as a conduit for EU funds, which side-lined local
authorities because elected people were excluded from the boards of these
companies. In their meetings, the rapporteurs were told by some local
authorities that EU funds were concentrated in government hands and that local
authorities would benefit from more direct contact with and information from
the EU Committee of Regions.

Financial equalisation

81. The Local Government Fund provides lump sum grants to local authorities
and is expected to serve also as an equalisation tool. However, the system of
distribution of grants to local governments from the Local Government Fund is
not transparent and the rules have been set without consultation with local
authorities. The equalisation formula existed for a short period only, because it
included about 800 parameters and was not operable in reality. From 2008
onwards, equalisation has been done on the basis of an administrative
assessment of needs and resources.

82. The Government have informed the rapporteurs that while equalisation does
not operate through a simple formula or model, it does involve a process using
real current data. Developed on the basis of a needs and resources study of
local government financing, it takes into account the individual circumstances of
local authorities in determining annual funding allocations, (making use of
regular dialogue through quarterly financial reports and specific submissions
covering, inter alia, demographic, social, economic factors.

3.4. Territorial issues

Local authorities

83. As regards the 114 local authorities established under the LGA 2001
(29 county councils, 5 city councils, and within these areas 5 borough
corporations and 75 town councils), the boundaries are shown on maps
prepared by the Chief Boundary Surveyor under the Survey (Ireland) Acts 1825
to 1870, or by the Commissioner of Valuation or otherwise in accordance with
law. They can be altered by the Minister after considering the report of the Local
Government Commission at the request of local authorities. The recent policy
brief indicates the will for major changes in this structure an independent
Boundary Committee has been established to draft the reform proposals.

84. As indicated earlier, a key element of the new reform is structural change.
Assuming that the respective legislative changes will be made, the County
Council configuration will essentially remain intact indeed, it will be reinforced
as the "primary element" of local government in Ireland (there will be two or
three merger situations whereby a city council will merge with its adjacent
county council).

85. The 80 Town Councils which existed as "islands" within the counties are
being abolished and will be replaced by a creation to be called "Municipal
District Councils" (MDCs). There will be perhaps four or five Municipal District
Councils in each county, but possibly less in some instances. They will be a form
of amalgam between the existing Town Councils and the electoral areas of the
County Councils but will have a series of powers in their own right. A key point is
that all of the country - urban and rural - will be embraced by the MDCs. The new
configuration of municipal districts will be drawn up on the basis of a report by
an independent statutory boundary committee which is currently carrying out a
review of local electoral areas. As part of the review, the Boundary Committee
has issued a public invitation for submissions, to give members of local
authorities an opportunity to make an input into the configuration of the
municipal districts.
86. The biggest innovation in the policy document is that the councillors who are
elected to the MDCs will also be members of the County Councils. This
arrangement will address the prevailing (undemocratic) situation whereby
those living in towns have two votes (one for town council, one for county
council) while those living in rural areas have just one vote. Changing the
structures and the election system will have the effect of reducing the number of
council seats from 1627 to approximately 950.

87. In the rapporteurs opinion, the structural changes are a positive element of
the proposed reform, as it provides a solution to an unfair situation whereby
those living in towns had two votes as compared to the rural areas which had
one. It also simplifies the structure. These changes are also expected to be
followed by other important steps, including greater subsidiarity, avoidance of
duplication, a review of boundaries, better representational balance between
urban and rural areas and a cohesive administrative/executive reorganisation.

88. As regards regional structures, see Section 3.9 for details.

3.5. Relations between central and local authorities

89. As already indicated, local government in Ireland is considered to be excessively centralised and
the current trend will probably not change in the short term. The central governments main argument
for limited devolvement in the short term is the limited trust in the capacity of local governments to
provide high quality standard services and value for money.

90. Another frequently used argument against the further transfer of


responsibilities to local authorities is the misuse by some elected local
government members of their reserved powers, their refusal to make decisions
necessary for the proper performance of their statutory functions and to levy
taxes (resulting in the progressive removal or curtailment of some of the
reserved powers of elected members in recent years and in their transfer to city
and county managers) or because the Government deemed certain functions by
their nature to be more appropriate to specialist agencies. It is said that elected
local authorities have been content to permit the transfer of their powers to levy
charges for services and taxes transferred to city and county managers, and that
elected local authorities prefer to perform those functions which they perceive
will be popular with their electorate and leave most of the difficult decisions to
management.

91. The reality is obviously more nuanced. The rapporteurs have been told that
the central government is also sometimes ineffective when dealing with local
matters. The issue of the collection of the quite unpopular household charge in
2012 is an interesting example in this respect. This is one case where central and
local authorities accuse each other with inefficiency. It would appear that the
government started by collecting it centrally. It became clear mid-term that
households were reluctant to pay it. The collection rate was low (for example
65% in Cork) because there was no political motivation to pay it on the part of
citizens once they realized that this money would not go to the local authorities
as they had thought. Also, in the absence of a database or register of households,
and the absence of a law for sharing information among state bodies, it was
difficult to follow up and check on abstentions. The Government decided to
delegate the collection of the household charge to the local authorities, who were
left in the unfortunate position of having to collect them in a very short time
(three months), risking criticism of inefficiency in tax collection.

92. Regarding the collection of the household charge, the Government explains
that the intention was for the local government system to collect the charge,
through a shared services centre (the Local Government Management Agency).
Local authorities were asked to also collect the charge alongside the shared
services centre. They note that 70% of the citizens paid the charge during its
introductory year and this charge has been used to fund local government
(receipts being routed directly to the Local Government Fund). They also draw
attention to the value of this exercise which allowed for the collation of data (and
sharing of information between Agencies) in relation to residential property
which will be an essential element for the implementation of the Local Property
Tax in 2013.

3.6. Supervision of local authorities

93. The decisions of public bodies including local or regional authorities may be
challenged (i) by an appeal to an administrative tribunal, and/or (ii) and/or the
courts and/or (iii) by judicial review or (iv) by complaint to the Ombudsman. No
administrative authority has powers to question how local authorities exercise
their functions except the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Ombudsman.

94. The most important control is financial as government departments (DECLG,


Transport) provide an important part of their financing. The government argues
that this control is mainly connected with the execution of central public
schemes by local authorities.

95. The DECLG also has specific powers such as to remove members of local
authorities from office on a number of specific grounds stated in section 216 of
LGA 2001 and to appoint a Commissioner to act as a local authority (although
this power has been used very rarely, the latest instance being around 25 years
ago). This being said, where local authorities are exercising their planning
functions, the Minister may at any time issue guidelines to them.

96. The Ombudsman examines complaints concerning the administrative


actions of local authorities and complaints concerning compliance with Part 3 of
the Disability Act 2005 under the Ombudsman Act 1980 as amended. They may
not examine decisions on planning applications or decisions made by elected
members exercising reserved functions. The Ombudsman reports to the
parliamentary Joint Committee on Investigations, Oversight and Petitions that
deal with complaints related to administrative issues concerning local
authorities. The Committee may examine witnesses; it can convene local
authorities and make recommendations for redress to the government or,
eventually, to the Parliament for a change in the legislation. For example, the
Irish Language Commissioner (An Coimisinir Teanga) was asked to appear
before the Committee, when national museums were not fulfilling their
obligations under the Official languages Act 2003, in obstruction of the official
policy of bilingualism. In its 2011 report, the Commissioner noted that 39.5% of
the language related complaints concerned local authorities.

97. In the rapporteurs opinion, it could generally be argued that supervision


and regulation of local authorities in Ireland is too detailed. The most important
instruments are regulations drawn up by central authorities (normally so tightly
drawn that they can limit local initiatives), subtle forms of control such as notes,
comments and explanations on legislation, technical inspection, enquiries by the
DECLG and budgetary restrictions and caps. The central government can,
under the section 199, 8a of LGA, revoke any local bye-law, if considered
objectionable although, once again, this power has apparently never been used.

98. The Government argues that, in practice, there are no cases of local initiatives
having been unduly limited by central government instruments and that the
DECLG does not engage in micro-management of local authority functions. A
large number of requirements for specific approval, sanction, etc. by the DECLG
have been dispensed with over the past 20 years or so. A further programme of
relaxation of controls and increase in local authority discretion will take place
under the Action Programme.

99. The Government also argues that there is an unavoidable responsibility on


the DECLG to ensure consistency with government policy and international
obligations, and maximum value for money in local authority programmes. In the
rapporteurs opinion, the argument about value for money, however, contradicts
the subsidiarity principle, in preferring central efficiency control for local
programmes.

3.7. Status of the capital city

100. There is no special law regulating the status of Dublin as the capital city.
The Local Government (Dublin) Act 1993, provided for the reorganisation of
local government in the Dublin area, including the establishment of three new
county councils and related matters.

101. The four local authorities in the Dublin area use their statutory powers to
coordinate their activities. The Dublin Transport Authority has a statutory
responsibility to ensure that they cooperate and coordinate on transport
matters.

102. The fact that Dublin is both a capital city with sub-divisions and a region
where a quarter of the population of the country resides gives it a special
position. At present the Lord Mayors of Dublin are elected each year by the
Dublin City Council from among its own members. It is open to the members of
Dublin City Council to continue a mayor in office.

103. In the rapporteurs opinion, the mayors (direct or indirect) election for a
term of, for example, five years would enhance the power of the mayor as
opposed to that of the manager and allow for continuity in the implementation of
long term objectives. The referendum on this issue is expected to be held in
2014.

3.8. Autonomy and freedom of association

104. Local authorities have a general power to act jointly with other local
authorities, but this power is directly mentioned in the LGA in relation to very
few own functions. On the other hand, Part 10 of the LGA 2001 enables a local
authority to enter into an agreement with another local authority for the
carrying out by the latter of any function that can be performed by the first-
mentioned authority. Professional associations of local authorities are
recognized by the LGA.

105. It should be pointed out that the local government representative


structure appears to be weak in Ireland. The Irish local government associations
do not systematically act together and because of their fragmentation, are not
sufficiently resourced to allow them to act as real representative bodies
internally and internationally.

106. Local government interests are also fragmented across four


representative bodies, which do not always communicate well and do not
present a united front vis--vis the government, a situation arguably less than
ideal for negotiation purposes. The rapporteurs learned during the visit that the
meetings the DECLG held with the associations during the preparation of the
policy paper had been mostly done separately, which did not allow for a cohesive
response to the reform proposals. The positions of AMAI and ACCC towards the
current reforms differ substantially; however they were able to work on some
aspects of the reform together (especially to create the list of allocation of
responsibilities between counties and municipal districts).

107. The DECLG informed the rapporteurs that a total of 16 engagements had
taken place since the Minister took office in March 2011. Local government
reform (general proposals or particular aspects) would have been the main item
in these encounters. The DECLG now intends to put in place a working group for
engagement of the local authority members associations in the local government
reform implementation process.

3.9. Regional democracy: The Reference Framework for Regional


Democracy

108. The rapporteurs have heard from various sources that in Ireland, people
think locally or nationally, but not regionally. Essentially, the main role of the
regions appears to be to serve as the tool for drawing down financial assistance
form EU funds.

109. There are 8 NUTS III Level regions in Ireland since 1994: the Border,
West, Midlands, Mid-East, Dublin, South-East, South-West and Mid-West regions.
This first level has no revenue generation powers; they are weak and their
mandate is very restricted. They are governed by Regional Authorities composed
of local politicians from their constituent county and city councils with powers to
review development plans, to prepare regional planning guidelines and
economic and social strategies and to encourage local authorities to coordinate
their activities and act jointly when appropriate and particularly relating to
climate change adaptation. They have no real powers to enforce coordination.
They depend on financing from councils and the central government.

110. Ireland is also divided into 2 NUTS II level regions for EU Structural
Funds purposes: The Border Midland & Western Region (BMW) and the
Southern & Eastern Region (S&E). Two Regional Assemblies comprise existing
elected members of city and county councils to promote the provision of public
services in their areas, manage regional EU financial supports and monitor the
general impact of EU assistance programmes. Their resources are agreed upon
every seven years.

111. According to the new policy brief, at the regional level, the number of
regional authorities/assemblies will be reduced to three. This is in part a
reflection of the fact that the regional authorities have little or no direct powers
and functions and are not directly elected.

112. The capital city of Dublin is both a region and a county with the same
geographical boundaries. It has a city council (Dublin City Council), three county
councils (Dn Laoghaire Rathdown, Fingal, and South Dublin) and a regional
authority (Dublin Regional Authority) responsible for coordination.

113. It must be noted that after the failure of the planning system to prevent the oversupply of
houses and properties between 2003 and 2008, the Planning and Development Act 2010 brought in
procedural requirements in favour of Regional Authorities enhancing their powers. Local authorities
can be required to comply with both government and regional land use and climate change policies.

114. The Association of Irish Regions has argued for a legislative framework to
further strengthen the regions which they claim could be a key driver in
addressing issues such as unemployment and social inclusion and for
maximising EU programme benefits. Regions could share service delivery with
transport, waste and water management etc. However, the discussion with the
interlocutors during the visit indicates that this is not a priority area of debate in
Ireland.

115. The rapporteurs are of the opinion that, in Ireland, the regional level of
government exists only formally. The counties remain the main reference point
as regards local government, and the new policy paper does not change much in
the make-up of regions and their competences.

116. The Government have explained that, having regard, inter alia, to the lack
of regional identity in Ireland and attitudes towards regional structures, they
decided to retain a regional dimension in the local government system, subject to
significant structural consolidation, updating of functions and streamlining of
operational arrangements. In particular, the regional bodies (Regional
Assemblies) will, in future, perform an enhanced function in the formulation of
Regional Spatial and Economic Strategies, and all relevant agencies will be
required by legislation to participate in this process and to adhere to the adopted
strategies in performance of their own functions. The new Regional Assemblies
will also have an important role in the new local government oversight process,
including performing an intermediate role between central government policy
and local authority strategies and programmes. Many of the existing regional
functions, including the role of regional assemblies in relation to EU
programmes, will be retained, but updated in light of experience to date. The
new regional structures will also be used for the adoption of strategies in sectors
other than the spatial/economic area. There are already indications that the new
regions will serve as the basis for developing of strategies in relation to sectors
such as waste and river basin management.
4. ANALYSIS OF THE SITUATION OF LOCAL DEMOCRACY IN LIGHT OF
THE EUROPEAN CHARTER ON LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT ON AN ARTICLE
BY ARTICLE BASIS

Article 2 Constitutional and legal foundation for local self-government

Article 2 Constitutional and legal foundation for local self-government

The principle of local self-government shall be recognised in domestic legislation, and where practicable in the constitution.

117. The Charter was ratified on 14 May 2002, with a declaration to the effect
that Ireland intends to confine the scope of the Charter to the following
categories of authorities: county councils, city councils and town councils.

118. Constitutional protection of local self-governments did not change during


the evaluated period and is rather weak.

Article 3 Concept of local self-government

Article 3 Concept of local self-government

1 Local self-government denotes the right and the ability of local authorities, within the limits of the law, to regulate and
manage a substantial share of public affairs under their own responsibility and in the interests of the local population.

2 This right shall be exercised by councils or assemblies composed of members freely elected by secret ballot on the basis
of direct, equal, universal suffrage, and which may possess executive organs responsible to them. This provision shall
in no way affect recourse to assemblies of citizens, referendums or any other form of direct citizen participation where
it is permitted by statute.

119. It cannot be said that local government in Ireland manages a substantial


share of public affairs, certainly when compared to local government in other
European countries. The interlocutors the rapporteurs met during the visit were
sceptical about the policy paper granting any new role to local authorities in
education, health, welfare, public transport, and policing, which are still
essentially run by the central Ministries or agencies.

120. Since the last Congress Recommendation, no new competences have been
transferred to local authorities. In fact, the opposite is true, for example the
centralisation of water management, which was mentioned at several meetings.
The rapporteurs were informed that, if anything, the transfer of powers has
travelled in the opposite direction - from local to the national level. However, as
indicated in Section 3.1.3, a certain limited amount of delegation and devolution
may actually see the day in the near future as a result of the 2012 policy brief.
The Government, through its Action Programme, is aiming to achieve a long term
expansion of the role of local government, particularly by virtue of the enhanced
confidence and credibility that they hope will ensue from the improvements that
will be implemented through the Action Programme, particularly in local
government efficiency, finance, governance and structures.

Article 4 Scope of local self-government

Article 4 Scope of local self-government


1 The basic powers and responsibilities of local authorities shall be prescribed by the constitution or by statute. However,
this provision shall not prevent the attribution to local authorities of powers and responsibilities for specific purposes
in accordance with the law.

2 Local authorities shall, within the limits of the law, have full discretion to exercise their initiative with regard to any
matter which is not excluded from their competence nor assigned to any other authority.

3 Public responsibilities shall generally be exercised, in preference, by those authorities who are closest to the citizen.
Allocation of responsibility to another authority should weigh up the extent and nature of the task and requirements of
efficiency and economy.

4 Powers given to local authorities shall normally be full and exclusive. They may not be undermined or limited by
another, central or regional, authority except as provided for by the law.

5 Where powers are delegated to them by a central or regional authority, local authorities shall, insofar as possible, be
allowed discretion in adapting their exercise to local conditions.

6 Local authorities shall be consulted, insofar as possible, in due time and in an appropriate way in the planning and
decision-making processes for all matters which concern them directly.

121. In the rapporteurs opinion, this principle is not well respected in Ireland,
especially with regards to discretion and consultation. Neither is the subsidiarity
principle sufficiently incorporated into the Irish legal system. The ultra vires
principle limits the right of local self-governments to manage their own affairs
under their own responsibility. The LGA 2001 partly improved the situation,
albeit not sufficiently.

122. Representatives of local authorities gave several examples of situations


that should, under the principles of Charter, be under full discretion for local
council decisions, but are very much centrally regulated, supervised or revoked.
Discretion is highly circumscribed also by the use of national regulations,
guidelines, statutory instruments, and frequent obligations to secure prior
approval in advance of decisions being taken (see for example information about
local public finance).

123. As already indicated, the application of the ultra vires principle to local
authority functions has been significantly relaxed and an extensive range of
central controls and requirements for prior approval have already been
dispensed with or reduced (including various matters listed in Table 2 of
Chapter 4 of the Action Programme). More significantly, it has been decided to
extend further local authority discretion to a number of local authority functions,
as set out in the Action Programme. The Government also claims that the
operation of the principle of subsidiarity will be enhanced under the new
arrangements, whereby a significant number of functions will be performed on a
fully devolved basis at district level, without reference to county level.

124. The Chief Justices Office clarified the situation for the rapporteurs in a
written comment, which noted: However, Article 4 para.1 of the Charter
provides that the basic powers and responsibilities of local authorities shall be
prescribed by the constitution or statute. In Ireland, such powers and
responsibilities are set out in legislation and local councils can only exercise the
powers and responsibilities that they are permitted to do in the legislation.
125. This letter also explained the relations between managers and councillors
further as follows in a telling example: most of the powers of local Councils
are carried out by a public servant known as a City/Manager. Councillors can
direct the Manager to do something. If they fail to do this, the Councillors can sue
the Manager in court following a motion passed by the Council. Section 140 of
the Local Government Act 2001 provides that the elected Councillors may pass a
resolution requiring that any particular matter or thing specifically mentioned in
the resolution and which the local authority or the Manager can lawfully do or
effect to be done or effected in performance of the executive functions of the
local authority, be carried out. It must be a matter which the Manager can
lawfully do. This power was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of P & F
Sharpe Limited v Dublin County Council [1989] IR 701. A case which illustrates
the role of the Manager is East Wicklow Conservation Community Limited v.
Wicklow County Council and Treacy [1997] 2 ILRM 72. The Council wished to
build a landfill and commissioned consultants to find the most suitable location.
On receipt of the report, the Councillors passed a resolution rejecting the
proposal. The Manager confirmed that he did not intend to comply with the
resolution of the Councillors. The Manager was of the view that legally he was
obliged to provide a place for the deposit of domestic waste material collected by
the Council. In the High Court, Mr Justice Costello held that the Manager was not
required to comply with the Councillors resolution because the works were
required under legislation. On appeal to the Supreme Court, M. Justice Blaney
upheld this decision.

126. A regular and standard system of consultations between central


government and local authorities has not been functionally established. There
are no general provisions in Irish law outlining a general principle or right for
local authorities or their associations to be consulted by national government.
However it should be noted that numerous specific provisions of Irish law do
provide for consultation of local authorities in specific instances. The opinion of
the rapporteurs is that the duty to consult all relevant matters with local
authorities in a regular and systematic way is so important that, as a core
principle, it should be part of local government legislation, and not only
mentioned on a piece by piece principle.

127. The preparatory process for the Action Programme can be used as an
example. According to the information from various interlocutors, there were
some public meetings organised by the DECLG, a questionnaire was sent out to
local authorities with a two-week deadline for replies, and the Minister held
some separate meetings with the different associations. The responses to the
questionnaire were analysed by an external agency and considered in the Action
Programme.

128. The Lord Mayor of Dublin informed the rapporteurs that they were not
consulted on the decision to establish a central water authority and to transfer
this responsibility from the local to the central level. Apparently, Dublin
authorities had proposed several changes to the existing legislation, none of
which were either reflected in or incorporated into the policy paper. The
Government explained that a comprehensive public consultation process had
been conducted in 2012 regarding the proposed reform of the water sector and
Irish Water had been established as an independent State-owned company.
These opposing views are symptomatic of the issues that exist concerning the
consultation process in Ireland.

129. That being said, all interlocutors confirm that the quality of consultation
processes improved between the monitoring visit of the Congress in October
2012 and the follow up visit in May 2013.

Article 5 Protection of boundaries

Article 5 Protection of local authority boundaries

Changes in local authority boundaries shall not be made without prior consultation of the local communities concerned,
possibly by means of a referendum where this is permitted by statute.

130. Alteration of boundaries can be initiated by local governments, but also


centrally. According to Article 61.(1) of the LGA, "Following consideration of a
report by the Local Government Commission with respect to the boundary of a
local authority, the Minister may, by order, alter the boundary of the relevant
county, city or town.

131. Some consultation in advance of boundary changes is formally provided


for in law, but can be cosmetic in practice. Referendums are not provided for by
law in the case of boundary changes, although local plebiscites are permitted by
law for a very limited number of other local issues (such as changing the name of
an area, etc.) The legislation that governs the alteration of local authority
boundaries [Section 29 of the LGA 1991 and the Local Government (Boundary
Alteration) Regulations 1996 (S.I. No 217 of 1996)] contain provisions for
consultation. These procedures include the publication of newspaper notices,
submissions by interested persons (which must be considered) and the
availability for public inspection of the proposal.]

132. The local authorities claim that there was not sufficient consultation as
foreseen in Article 4, para.6 of the Charter (in due time and in an appropriate
manner) on the new territorial structure proposed by the Action Programme,
either with citizens, councillors or associations. The DECLG contends that they
did consult. The rapporteurs note that the lack of an institutionalised procedure
and the fragmentation of the associations representing local authorities must
have contributed to creating this unsatisfactory situation.

133. The DECLG has informed the rapporteurs that a Local Electoral Area
Boundary Committee has been recently established to review and make
recommendations on local electoral area boundaries in the context of the results
of the 2011 census and the Action Programme. The Committee has been asked to
report back no later than May 2013. The Committee has issued a public
invitation for submissions as part of the review process.

Article 6 Administrative structures


Article 6 Appropriate administrative structures and resources for the tasks of local authorities

1 Without prejudice to more general statutory provisions, local authorities shall be able to determine their own internal
administrative structures in order to adapt them to local needs and ensure effective management.

2 The conditions of service of local government employees shall be such as to permit the recruitment of high-quality staff
on the basis of merit and competence; to this end adequate training opportunities, remuneration and career prospects
shall be provided.

134. The LGA significantly improved the right of local self-governments to


determine their own internal structures (Article 158-1), but in reality the
financial limits provided by the central government still remain the core
determinant of the number of staff employed by local authorities.

135. The conditions of service (such as qualification requirements) of local


government employees are to a large extent determined centrally. Pay scales for
most local authority staff are set on a nationwide basis through ay structured
negotiating mechanism with the Local Government Management Services
Agency (representing the Government and County Managers) negotiating with
the trade unions. For the past number of years, there have been decreases in the
pay scales so as to respond to the national funding emergency and, partly, as a
result of the increased insistence for value for money in relation to public
spending in general. In March 2012 local authority staff salaries stood at 28,765
euros per annum as compared to 37,243 euros in mid-2008 which might be
acceptable, taking into account the broader economic constraints and the need
for savings on all levels of government.

Article 7 Conditions under which responsibilities at local level are exercised

Article 7 Conditions under which responsibilities at local level are exercised

1 The conditions of office of local elected representatives shall provide for free exercise of their functions.

2 They shall allow for appropriate financial compensation for expenses incurred in the exercise of the office in question as
well as, where appropriate, compensation for loss of earnings or remuneration for work done and corresponding
social welfare protection.

3 Any functions and activities which are deemed incompatible with the holding of local elective office shall be determined
by statute or fundamental legal principles.

136. The LGA significantly improved the status of local elected officials, but
some obstacles still remain. The LGA clearly defines the code of conduct that
applies and also the incompatibilities.

137. As indicated under its Section 3.2.5, most members of councils work for
local self-governments on a part time basis and receive financial compensation.
However, there is no legislation containing rules for private employers to
provide free time to elected officials for participation in local matters. This
situation prevents many private sector employees to be a candidate for local
elections, despite of the fact that most of the official business of councillors
occurs outside of normal business hours.

Article 8 Administrative supervision of local authorities' activities


Article 8 Administrative supervision of local authorities' activities

1 Any administrative supervision of local authorities may only be exercised according to such procedures and in such
cases as are provided for by the constitution or by statute.

2 Any administrative supervision of the activities of the local authorities shall normally aim only at ensuring compliance
with the law and with constitutional principles. Administrative supervision may however be exercised with regard to
expediency by higher-level authorities in respect of tasks the execution of which is delegated to local authorities.

3 Administrative supervision of local authorities shall be exercised in such a way as to ensure that the intervention of the
controlling authority is kept in proportion to the importance of the interests which it is intended to protect.

138. The adoption of the LGA and consequent amendments to the legislation
did not manage to decrease the high level of different forms of central
supervision on local government activities (a telling statistic: the word Minister
appears 461 times in the LGA).

139. The administrative supervision of local government is detailed national


government remains highly interventionist in local decision-making. In their
written replies to questions put by the rapporteurs, the DECLG maintained that:

Where responsibilities rest with local authorities, the exercise of these is occasionally subject
to control and monitoring by Government Departments at central level with a view to

aiming to ensure consistency (e.g. in terms of standards and level of service) throughout
the State in programmes and schemes;

maintaining control over the financial impact of local authority activities;

keeping Government abreast of the progress of programmes and activities at local


authority level;

ensuring adequate compliance with national objectives and international obligations.

For example, the specific sanction of the Minister for the Environment,
Community and Local Government is required in particular instances,
such as for borrowing and lending, which are set out in the Local
Government Act 2001. In the light of the current very difficult economic
circumstances, it has been necessary for the Department of the
Environment Community and Local Government to introduce additional
financial management controls and monitoring in relation to local
government expenditure.

140. The following are some further examples of this interventionist


approach:

- The central government can, under Section 199, 8a of the LGA, still revoke
any local bylaw, if it is considered objectionable, even if they have never
done so.

- According to the section 212 of the LGA, the Minister may cause such
public local inquiries to be held as he or she may consider necessary or
desirable (a) for the purposes of section 216(1) (a) or the functions
conferred on him or her or by any other enactment, or (b) in relation to
the performance of the functions of any local authority. The DECLG
explains that Part 20 of the LGA, of which section 212 is part and which
provides for matters related to public local enquiries, has not yet been
commenced. Part 20 thereof was intended to replace a number of
existing provisions in local government legislation, the key provision of
which is section 83 of the Local Government Act 1941 (which remains in
place). Section 83 enables the Minister to appoint a person to carry out a
local enquiry for the purposes of any of the powers and duties for the
time being conferred or imposed on him. This power was envisaged to be
appropriate where a local authoritys functions are not being duly and
effectually performed. The power has been used only in the most
exceptional circumstances.

141. As mentioned before, the new Action Programme contains the risk, if
implemented as it is, of increasing the level of supervision even more through
the establishment of a new additional National Oversight Office to monitor the
efficiency and effectiveness of local authorities including, inter alia, their
compliance with national objectives and policies. A lot will depend on the final
Statute of the Office that is expected to operate independently of the DECLG. The
DECLG also argues that the main goal of the Office will be evidencing local
authority performance and consistency with government policy and not direct
supervision. The Government stresses that local authorities are expected to be
important stakeholders of the process.

142. The specific issue that should be mentioned here is that there are quite a
number of cases where local government issues have been raised in courts in the
context of the services which local councils provide and the law concerned with
such services (legal supervision). For example in the case of Brady v Cavan
County Council [2000] 1 ILRM 81, the applicant claimed an order against the local
council requiring it to keep the roads in its care in an adequate condition, despite
the plea that to do so would leave the council with inadequate funds to discharge
their duties in other areas such as public housing or water sewerage facilities. A
majority of the members of the Supreme Court rejected this claim, resting its
decision on the ground that the council did not have the means to comply with
the order and that there was no way of knowing whether the central government
would have assisted it. This case concerned a poor local authority that would
take twenty two years to bring its entire road network into a satisfactory
condition. Another aspect of the judgment is the separation of powers between
the judicial branch of government and the legislative branch of government
which is established by the Constitution. The role of the courts is not to make
policy decisions or to direct how government monies should be spent. That is a
matter reserved for the legislature.

143. Another specific way of supervision is when members of the public, who
feel that they have been treated unfairly, may also make complaints against local
authorities to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman can examine complaints about
how local authority staff carries out their everyday executive and administrative
activities. These include complaints about delays or failing to take action.
Article 9 Financial resources

Article 9 Financial resources of local authorities

1 Local authorities shall be entitled, within national economic policy, to adequate financial resources of their own, of
which they may dispose freely within the framework of their powers.

2 Local authorities' financial resources shall be commensurate with the responsibilities provided for by the constitution
and the law.

3 Part at least of the financial resources of local authorities shall derive from local taxes and charges of which, within the
limits of statute, they have the power to determine the rate.

4 The financial systems on which resources available to local authorities are based shall be of a sufficiently diversified and
buoyant nature to enable them to keep pace as far as practically possible with the real evolution of the cost of carrying
out their tasks.

5 The protection of financially weaker local authorities calls for the institution of financial equalisation procedures or
equivalent measures which are designed to correct the effects of the unequal distribution of potential sources of
finance and of the financial burden they must support. Such procedures or measures shall not diminish the discretion
local authorities may exercise within their own sphere of responsibility.

6 Local authorities shall be consulted, in an appropriate manner, on the way in which redistributed resources are to be
allocated to them.

7 As far as possible, grants to local authorities shall not be earmarked for the financing of specific projects. The provision
of grants shall not remove the basic freedom of local authorities to exercise policy discretion within their own
jurisdiction.

8 For the purpose of borrowing for capital investment, local authorities shall have access to the national capital market
within the limits of the law.

144. In the rapporteurs opinion, it is difficult to claim that these provisions


are fully respected. The system of calculating real costs for all own and
delegated local government functions are not operational and the disputes
concerning the appropriate or non-appropriate level of funding are not evidence-
based. Rather surprisingly, local governments and their associations do not
regularly complain against possible underfunding and limited financial
management discretion.

145. The revenues of local governments significantly decreased during the


period of the economic crisis after 2008. Apparently, for the time being, these
cuts have not had a dramatic impact on the quality of local public services,
although several local governments claim that their financial situation is not
sustainable from a medium or longer term perspective.

146. The DECLGs point of view concerning the relation between


responsibilities and resources of local governments is that, by adopting an
appropriate budget to meet identified needs, local authorities have a good level
of ability to provide themselves with the financial resources that they need to
discharge their functions.

147. Several local authorities are currently in a very difficult financial


situation. Some sources of revenue have effectively disappeared such as
development levies; central government grants have been cut, and local
authorities have been told to freeze local rates on commercial properties. The
impression the rapporteurs had during the visit is that public sector savings are
not proportional between central and local level, with heavier impact locally. The
Government, in their written replies to the rapporteurs, maintained another
point of view, according to which local authorities have had an adequate level of
funding in 2012 to provide a reasonable level of local services to their
communities.[14]

148. The public finance system in Ireland cannot be said to constitute a


sufficiently diversified and buoyant system, keeping pace with the evolution of
local tasks. Local governments manage one local tax, commercial rates and can
collect fees for local services. Especially smaller and economically weaker
municipalities are too dependent on central grants.

149. The new property tax to be introduced is slightly changing the situation
in local finance. Because it is expected that local governments will have the right
to modify the rates within a given interval, this tax is expected to establish a
better link between local revenue and expenditure (although the tax will be
centrally administered). The Governments plan is to return 80 % of the
revenues back to the local authorities where the tax was collected and use only
20 % of revenues for equalisation purposes. On the other hand, this tax will not
mean extra revenues for local governments this is almost impossible given the
current economic situation in Ireland.

150. Local financial managers indicated that the level of discretion as to how
to use revenues is strictly limited about 90 % of revenues need to be used to
cover fixed costs. And as said earlier, the equalisation system remains a
mystery to practically everyone in the local government system.

151. Concerning borrowing by local authorities, the LGA (Article 106) states
that a local authority may borrow money in any manner which it considers
suitable for the effective performance of its functions. However, borrowing by a
local authority under this section can only be with the sanction of the
appropriate Minister.

152. Ireland recorded a General Government Deficit in 2002 and with further
deficits forecast, the Government, in the context of Budget 2004, set a limit of
200 million euros for the contribution of the local government sector to the
deterioration in the General Government Balance (GGB) in any one year. This
200 million euro limit was reaffirmed in 2009 when the DECLG reiterated the
importance of controlling the local government sector's GGB contribution and
put in place a range of specific measures to ensure that the annual outturn
remained within the 200 million euro deficit limit.

Article 10 Right to associate

Article 10 Local authorities' right to associate

1 Local authorities shall be entitled, in exercising their powers, to co-operate and, within the framework of the law, to
form consortia with other local authorities in order to carry out tasks of common interest.
2 The entitlement of local authorities to belong to an association for the protection and promotion of their common
interests and to belong to an international association of local authorities shall be recognised in each State.

3 Local authorities shall be entitled, under such conditions as may be provided for by the law, to co-operate with their
counterparts in other States.

153. Different parts of the LGA regulate local authorities right to associate and
co-operate.

154. Section 85 of the LGA provides that two local authorities may enter into
an agreement for one of them to perform a function on behalf of the other.
Section 86 provides for two or more local authorities to make arrangements for
the joint discharge of any of their functions. Section 87 provides for the Minister
for the DECLG to make regulations requiring local authorities to enter into an
agreement for one authority to carry out the function of another authority. The
use of the powers provided in section 85 is a reserved function of the elected
members of each local authority.

155. Section 225 of the LGA regulates the right to associate as follows:

(2) A local authority may hold membership of an association of local


authorities.

(3) An association of local authorities may carry out such activities as are
necessary to represent the collective interests of the local authorities
which constitute its membership, including

(a) the undertaking of research and other studies,

(b) the promotion of education and training,

(c) the provision of policy support and other assistance to its constituent
authorities as regards any matter relating to local government, or

(d) the making of submissions to the Minister or other public authorities


as regards such matters.

(4) An association of local authorities shall operate in accordance with its


constitution or other procedural rules (by whatever name called).

156. This part of the LGA also provides statutory recognition for local
authority representative associations.

157. According to the DECLG, there are examples of cooperation between local
authorities throughout the country that provide efficiencies alongside enhanced
customer services. Under their local government reform programme, one of the
important local authority initiatives is that of Shared Services, which will provide
an important mechanism to make savings in administrative costs across local
authority boundaries, without having an adverse impact on front-line services.
They expect savings that could potentially be in the region of 10-15% of baseline
costs. Priority areas for consideration include regional Shared Payroll, Integrated
Procurement, Transactional HR and both Back/Front Office ICT Services. The re-
organisation of these back office functions will afford local authorities the
opportunity to manage both their staff and their assets in a more cost-effective
manner in the long term.

Article 11 Legal protection of local governments

Article 11 Legal protection of local self-government

Local authorities shall have the right of recourse to a judicial remedy in order to secure free exercise of their powers and
respect for such principles of local self-government as are enshrined in the constitution or domestic legislation.

158. In Ireland a possible remedy exists, but is not known to have been used in
practice. Very seldom does a local authority challenge an act of a higher authority
(or a national law) in court.

159. The Constitution entrusts the power of judicial review to the High Court
and the Supreme Court. Article 34.3.2 of the Constitution states that:

Save as otherwise provided by this Article, the jurisdiction of the High


Court shall extend to the question of the validity of any law having regard
to the provisions of this Constitution, and no such question shall be raised
(whether by pleading, argument or otherwise) in any Court established
under this or any other Article of this Constitution other than the High
Court or the Supreme Court.

160. Therefore, a local authority could challenge the constitutionality of


legislation enacted by the Oireachtas in accordance with Article 34.3.2, but it is
highly unlikely to do so. It could also seek judicial review of the actions of a
higher authority such as a Government Minister if, for example, it was alleged
that the Minister breached fair procedures in making a decision.

Article 12 Undertakings reservations formulated by States, if any

Article 12 Undertakings

1 Each Party undertakes to consider itself bound by at least twenty paragraphs of Part I of the Charter, at least ten of
which shall be selected from among the following paragraphs:

Article 2,

Article 3, paragraphs 1 and 2,

Article 4, paragraphs 1, 2 and 4,

Article 5,

Article 7, paragraph 1,

Article 8, paragraph 2,

Article 9, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3,


Article 10, paragraph 1,

Article 11.

2 Each Contracting State, when depositing its instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval, shall notify to the
Secretary General of the Council of Europe of the paragraphs selected in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1
of this article.

3 Any Party may, at any later time, notify the Secretary General that it considers itself bound by any paragraphs of this
Charter which it has not already accepted under the terms of paragraph 1 of this article. Such undertakings
subsequently given shall be deemed to be an integral part of the ratification, acceptance or approval of the Party so
notifying, and shall have the same effect as from the first day of the month following the expiration of a period of
three months after the date of the receipt of the notification by the Secretary General.

161. The Charter was ratified in Dil ireann on 20 March, 2002 and the
instrument of ratification (with declarations) was deposited by Ireland on 14
May 2002, the treaty entering into force in Ireland on the 1 September 2002. The
declaration attached to the ratification instrument stated that Ireland considers
itself bound by all the paragraphs of Part I of the Charter (the substantive
provisions of the Charter) and that Ireland intends to confine the scope of the
Charter to the following categories of authorities: county councils, city councils,
town councils.

162. The Congress outlined its understanding of the position of dualist States,
including Ireland, in relation to the Charter in a memorandum at the 21st Session
of the Chamber of Local Authorities on 28 September 2011. It accepts that
Ireland is a dualist state and that the Charter does not have direct effect and
consequently a direct application in domestic law without a further legal
instrument.

163. It stated this of the Charters binding effect:

32. The Charter was conceived as an instrument with binding effects,


entailing commitments under international law (and not domestic law).
Countries signing and ratifying the Charter undertake to abide by it in that
they will not only refrain from future adoption of domestic law provisions
at variance with the Charter, but also amend any provisions which conflict
with the Charter.

164. In the opinion of the rapporteurs, the expected commitment of Ireland to


adopt all the principles expressed in the Charter into domestic legislation was
partly reflected by the contents of the LGA 2001, but no further effort was made
to harmonise or amend all the provisions of national legislation which conflict
with the Charter after 2001. The rapporteurs maintain that there is no direct
conflict between Irish legislation and the provisions of the Charter, although
several important gaps exist in the legislation.

165. The rapporteurs welcome the publication of the Policy Paper Putting
People First in October 2012. This document re-invents, so to speak, issues of
local democracy in Ireland after more than a decade of non-realised
proclamations (all the important points of this Policy Paper are discussed in
topical parts of the report). A major programme of local government legislation
is expected to proceed in 2013 to provide for the extensive reforms set out in the
Action Programme. Assuming that legislative proposals will be adopted by the
Parliament, the reflection of the spirit of the Charter in Irish public policy is
expected to improve.

166. Some of the recommendations dating back to 2001 are still valid: Local
authorities in Ireland still cannot be said to regulate and manage a substantial
share of public affairs; the principle of subsidiarity is still not a primary concern
in the allocation of public responsibilities. Local authorities discretion is still
highly circumscribed through the use of statutory instruments and regulations to
supplement laws, and the need to secure sanctions and prior approvals from
national government for many activities. Consultation of local authorities over
new legislation or financial decisions is not systematic. Local authorities are not
provided with adequate or sufficiently diversified resources which are
commensurate with the responsibilities of local government. Specific or
earmarked grants still make up a significant proportion of central government
transfers.

167. The rapporteurs had the opportunity to discuss with Minister Hogan the
possibility of the signing and ratification of various Council of Europe legal
instruments related to local democracy such as the Additional Protocol to the
European Charter of Local Self-Government on the right to participate in the
affairs of a local authority (CETS No.: 207), the Additional Protocol to the
European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation between Territorial
Communities or Authorities (ETS No. 159), and the Convention on the
Participation of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Level (ETS No. 144).

168. They were informed that, it is intended to give consideration to the issue
of ratification of the Additional Protocol to the European Charter of Local Self-
Government on the right to participate in the affairs of a local authority as soon
as possible in the context of implementation of the Action Programme. As
regards the signature of the Convention on the Participation of Foreigners in
Public Life at Local Level, the rapporteurs were given to understand that
providing separate rights and arrangements for new-comers would run contrary
to Irelands national policy, which is consistent with the European Common
Basic Principles of Integration (established by the Council of the EU and the
Governments of the Member States in 2005). Consequently, no development is to
be expected on this particular point.

5. CONCLUSIONS
169. The rapporteurs welcome the important changes accomplished by the
Republic of Ireland since the last monitoring mission (especially the adoption of
the Local Government Act in 2001). There is a will to move from an almost fully
centralised system to a certain level of decentralisation, even if, because of
historical and political reasons, decentralisation reforms are difficult to propose
and to implement. The Action Programme adopted in October 2012 provides a
clear commitment on the part of the Government to expand the local
governments role. It is a comprehensive effort with the potential for far
reaching consequences.

170. It is also noteworthy that the local authorities in Ireland, in spite of


various structural and financial issues, have a strong connection to their citizens
and deliver services adequately.

171. The basic legal framework is now established for local and partly also for
regional authorities; however in the rapporteurs opinion, it is difficult to say
that it is fully in conformity with the Charter. Some principles of the Charter are
insufficiently respected from both de iure and/or de facto perspectives. The
importance of the principle of subsidiarity is not properly reflected in the
legislation. The rapporteurs encourage the Government to revise their legislation
in order to ensure that the subsidiarity principle is better enshrined and
protected in the law and to promote this crucial principle in practice in the Irish
public administration system.

172. The constitutional protection of local self-government is rather weak. The


Constitution recognises the role of local government but limits its action to
powers and functions conferred by law. As regards the scope of local self-
government, this is contrary to the principle of full discretion to exercise
initiatives with regard to any matter which is not excluded from local
competence. Formally it is still valid that local councils can only exercise the
powers and responsibilities that they are permitted to do in the law. The position
of the public servant known as a City or County Manager is ambiguous in relation
to the elected representatives.

173. As regards the scale and structure of the powers and responsibilities of
local and regional authorities, local authorities are still waiting for a strong
decentralisation effort involving the delegation of relevant competences and
financial independence to the local and, also, the regional level.

174. The Action Programme, although it praises decentralisation in spirit, does


not provide massive concrete steps in that direction. The rapporteurs are
concerned that some of the actual steps proposed may go in the opposite
direction (centralisation of water management for example). The Action
Programme provides for the assignment of some significant additional functions
to local government, particularly in the form of local enterprise,
community/local development and economic development, but the devolvement
of other typical local government services is only a long term goal in its text.

175. The Action Programme contains a clear commitment to more far-


reaching expansion of the role of local government in the future. According to the
Government, it provides a realistic pathway to achieving this, but the
Government also recognises the difficulty involved in this regard. However, not
all other stakeholders are of the same opinion: local government representatives
feel that they are prepared for a higher level of responsibility.
176. The rapporteurs are also concerned that consultations with local
authorities and their associations are not systematic or sufficiently regulated to
allow the latter to make an input into the proposed reform. Mechanisms of
consultation with local and regional authorities on matters concerning them
directly should be further developed both in legislation and, especially, from a
practical implementation perspective with clear rules in line with the due time
and appropriate way provisions of Article 4 para.6 of the Charter.

177. The limited cooperation between and different views defended by the
relevant local and regional government associations do not positively contribute
to ensure a high level of autonomy within the limits of the law for municipalities
and regions. The rapporteurs invite the local authorities to discuss the merits of
setting up a procedure or body that will unite all their representative
associations under one roof so that they can develop strategies and defend their
common interests. The merger of associations proposed by the Action
Programme is very encouraging in this regard.

178. The conditions of office of local elected representatives are insufficiently


regulated by general legislation (Labour Code). This situation makes
participation of certain social groups (especially private sector employees) in the
councils difficult.

179. Administrative supervision of local authority activities by the central


level remains extremely high and, under this system, it is difficult to state that
powers given to local authorities are full and exclusive. The Action Programme is
expected to lead to further relaxation in this regard. However, the excessive
oversight and regulation of local government actions and especially low trust in
their managerial capacities should be addressed by all actors more effectively.

180. It seems to the rapporteurs that the core actors of the local government
system do not have sufficient information database to verify whether local
financial resources are adequate and commensurate with the scale and scope of
their responsibilities. The central government realised several extensive
evaluations of the financial situation in recent years (like the Special Group on
Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes findings, the report of the
Commission on Taxation, which considered inter alia the sources of funding for
local authorities, the Local Government Expenditure Review). However, all the
data obtained failed to bring the positions of the Government and local
authorities concerning the adequacy of funding close enough.

181. The scale of real local taxes and the freedom to set their rates appear to
be very limited. During the economic crisis, the financial resources of local
governments have decreased, but the volume of their responsibilities has
remained the same. The current cuts have seriously limited the capacity of local
governments to deliver the needed scale and quality in local public services. The
right of local governments to borrow is considerably restricted.

182. The equalisation mechanism is not transparent. Local governments have


the formal freedom to adopt budgets in the most preferable way but such
freedom is severely limited in practice. The local finance officers, with whom the
rapporteurs had the opportunity to discuss the issue, claimed that more than 90
% of their expenditure was composed of pre-determined items.

183. As regards the regions, the rapporteurs would encourage the Irish
Government to consider opening the debate on further developing the regional
tier of government, with the possibility of putting in place a system of direct
election of representatives and real responsibilities in delivery of regional
public services.

184. Finally, the rapporteurs would welcome the signing of the Additional
Protocol to the European Outline Convention on Trans-frontier Co-operation
between Territorial Communities or Authorities (ETS No. 159), the Additional
Protocol to the European Charter of Local Self-Government on the right to
participate in the affairs of a local authority (CETS No. 207) and the Convention
on the Participation of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Level (ETS No. 144), as a
very positive step towards the fulfilment of the countries obligations under the
Charter.
Appendix 1 Information on the implementation of human
rights at local and regional level
Participation: Citizen Involvement in decision making and elections

1. During several meetings with the rapporteurs, interlocutors came up with


similar expressions to describe the level of citizen involvement in local matters,
saying that the Irish participate only when their private interests are influenced
by actions of public bodies (not in my backyard principle).

2. Existing analytical studies indicate that there is much truth behind this
statement. For example the Barrington report stated in 1991 that, in Ireland,
there is limited scope for public involvement. In recent years several statutory
tools for direct citizen involvement have come to the fore, especially
consultations in areas of urban planning and infrastructure developments. In
many cases, specific civic initiatives are formed to lobby for or against planning
decisions.

3. On the other hand instruments like local referenda are really uncommon. The
participation of citizens at local elections is below the turnover at national level
elections. During the visit, some interlocutors indicated that citizens sometimes
prefer to contact their TDs and not the local elected councillors mainly because
they know that most decisions are taken centrally and clientelism appears to be
part of the political culture.

4. The specific forms of participation at the local government level are:

i) The Strategic Policy Committees. Not less than one-third of the


members of these committees are drawn from various sectors relevant to
the work of the committees (e.g. representatives from the agricultural,
business, the trade union and community and voluntary sectors). These
committees have to be established for all major policy areas at local level.
The final decision however, is ultimately a Council responsibility.

ii) The City and County Development Boards. Their role is to coordinate
the delivery of local public services.

iii) Community and voluntary forums, where especially NGOs in the given
area participate. Forums are used to nominate members for SPCs and
Boards. There are also residents associations and customer participation
initiatives such as the Your Voice, Your Dublin were mentioned.

5. Citizen submissions to the Ombudsman are relatively frequent - about 27% of


complaints concern local issues. Typical complaints concern developers who
breach building permits (local governments are expected to start legal
procedures in such cases, but this is rare because of costs and length), housing
(including complaints against providing housing to vulnerable groups) and
waste management (some cities have decided to fully privatise this service -
which may increase the number of complaints in the near future).

6. There is no local petition officer at local government level in Ireland. The


Freedom of Information Act is sometimes used by citizens to ask for data and
information.

7. According to the DECLG, there are two sides to the coin: On the one hand, in
2007, the Taskforce on Active Citizenship, which was established to consider
ways in which people can be encouraged and supported to play active roles as
members of their communities and society, recognised that Ireland already has
quite an extensive range of local government and local and community
development structures and has extensive interaction between local authorities
and communities: Attendance by the public and the media at local authority
meetings and the availability of the minutes of those meetings; the provision of
information on local authority activities, budgets, etc.; the consultation of the
public on a range of specific matters such as proposed bylaws; proposed
development plans and various projects; the Strategic Policy Committee system;
and the Community and Voluntary Forums, which were established in 2000 in
each city and county as part of the County/City Development Boards (CDBs)
initiative.

8. There are also powers given under the Local Government Act 2001 to deepen
the extent of local authority engagement with the local community, including by
consulting with local sectoral, community or other groups, or associations;
holding information meetings and disseminating information to the public;
ascertaining the views of the local community in relation to matters that affect
them, and organising the carrying-out of research, surveys or studies in the
community.

9. However, the same Taskforce also found that there was a perceived inability
of communities to influence decisions taken by statutory bodies effectively, and a
lack of suitably mechanisms to channel civic energy in tackling local needs. Local
authorities often feel that the public does not engage to best effect with
consultation on strategic policies which set the framework for decision making
and only engage at a very late stage when specific decisions are seen to affect the
locality. These difficulties are not unique to Ireland. The Taskforce recommended
reform in this regard, including decentralisation of decision-making powers and
associated reform of revenue-raising capabilities at local level.

10. While existing mechanisms for consulting the public are extensive, it is now
considered that further means of engagement by citizens in local authority policy
formulation and service design should be considered. The Action Programme
includes a number of measures that will facilitate an improved level of
engagement, such as the restructuring of local government at sub-county level in
a way that will bring local government closer to communities; providing local
government with a more meaningful range of powers and make it more relevant
to their needs; consideration of additional mechanisms to broaden the
engagement with citizens and communities; and the improvement of
communication by local authorities with their citizens.

Non-discrimination:

11. There is a diversity of ethnic minorities in Ireland. These include the


Traveller community which is expected to be the largest (23,681 according to
the 2002 Census), Africans, Asians and people from the Caribbean, the Jewish
community (3,000), asylum seekers and refugees. There are also foreigners
(especially from the new EU member states) officially employed in Ireland.
According to the estimates, about 15 % of people living in Ireland belong to
minorities or are foreign citizens.

12. Based on the report of the Ireland Human Rights Commission (IHRC),[15] it
is possible to argue that:

non-discrimination/minorities issues are relatively comprehensively handled by Irish


legislation and there are no major gaps visible from a legal point of view (as stated, for
example, by UN regular evaluations);

but there are several implementation gaps. According to the IHRC report, it is important to
note that there is no national action plan on human rights or other comprehensive human
rights policy, and this lacuna hinders comprehensive consideration of all human rights across
all areas of Irish life.

13. The situation of the Traveller community is an issue in Ireland. According to


the IHRC, Travellers face high levels of discrimination and continue to be
disadvantaged. They continue to have a much shorter life expectancy and poorer
educational and health outcomes compared to the general population. They do
not have sufficient access to accommodation that reflects their nomadic way of
life and they remain unrecognised as an ethnic minority. Cuts in funding to
essential services may compound these problems.

14. According to some interlocutors the rapporteurs met, one of the reasons why
Travellers access to accommodation is really restricted in Ireland (in spite of a
relatively well functioning system of social housing) is that there are waiting lists
for social houses and Travellers frequently move, falling to the bottom of a
waiting list again and again. According to these local authorities, special
legislation is necessary to cope with this problem.

15. The 2001 report of the National Consultative Committee on Racism and
Interculturalism referred to generalised and emotive statements and comments
being made by a small number of councillors in relation to both Travellers and
asylum seekers.[16] Apparently, there are indications that some councillors
consider it necessary to establish anti-Traveller credentials, or at least be seen as
opponents of any measures to meet the accommodation needs of Travellers, for
electoral purposes.

16. Ireland has made (following its Universal Periodic Review Hearing in October
2011) commitments to strengthen the rights of Travellers with special focus on
access to health care, education, housing, and ensuring greater Traveller
participation in decision making processes. The IHRC continues to call on the
government to recognise Travellers as a distinct ethnic minority.

17. On the specific issue of Traveller accommodation, which is the main area of
local government involvement in relation to Travellers, the following might be
noted:

Traveller accommodation is dealt with within the context of overall


comprehensive housing policy and legislation, and through the Housing
(Traveller Accommodation) Act 1998 which addresses the special needs of
Travellers. Under that Act, each major housing authority is required to draw
up, adopt, and implement multi-annual Traveller accommodation
programmes, with the aim of accelerating the provision of accommodation
for Travellers. In early 2009, local authorities adopted a third round of
accommodation programmes which will cover the period 2009 2013.

In accordance with the provisions of the 1998 Act, responsibility for


assessment of the accommodation needs of Travellers, the preparation,
adoption and implementation of multi-annual Traveller Accommodation
Programmes, and the provision of Traveller accommodation rests with
individual housing authorities. The role of the Department of the
Environment, Community and Local Government is to ensure that there is an
adequate legislative and financial system in place to assist the authorities in
providing such accommodation.

Accommodation for Travellers is provided across a range of options. DECLG


provides:

o 100% capital funding for Traveller-specific accommodation (halting


sites and Group Housing Schemes;)

o funding for a range of support services which operate in tandem with


the capital programme;

o funding towards the salary and expenses of social workers employed


by local authorities and others working with Travellers and other
costs.

A substantial amount of accommodation was provided for Travellers under


the first and second Traveller Accommodation Programmes, and progress is
continuing under the third Programme. This has resulted in a significant
reduction in the number of Traveller families living on unauthorised sites. An
indication of the extent of progress that has been made can be obtained from
the fact that in 2011, some 87% of Traveller families were accommodated in
housing (whether State assistance or otherwise), compared with around 64%
in 2002. During that period the total number of Traveller families increased
from 6,289 to 9,535.
18. On the question of ethnic status (which does not come within DECLGs area of
responsibility), the Irish Government has taken the view that, while Travellers
are clearly an indigenous minority community, there is no firm rationale for
specific ethnic recognition. Travellers have the same civil and political rights as
other citizens under the Constitution. The key anti-discrimination measures, the
Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, 1989, the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977,
the Employment Equality Acts and the Equal Status Acts specifically identify
Travellers by name as a protected group. The Equality Act 2004, which
transposed the EU Racial Equality Directive, applied all the protections of that
Directive across all of the nine grounds contained in the legislation, including the
Traveller community ground. All the protections afforded to ethnic minorities in
EU directives and international conventions apply to Travellers because the Irish
legislation giving effect to those international instruments explicitly protects
Travellers.

19. The situation of other minorities is better, especially from a social rights
point of view, but their representation in public life is really limited (for example,
the first Muslim member of Senate was elected for the period 199297. There
are no Muslim local councillors to date).

20. Bilingualism is sometimes an issue. For example, the Irish Language


Commissioner (An Coimisinir Teanga) was asked to appear before the
parliamentary Joint Committee on Investigations, Oversight and Petitions, when
national museums were not fulfilling their obligations under the Official
languages Act 2003, in obstruction of the official policy of bilingualism. In its
2011 report, the Commissioner had noted that 39.5% of the language related
complaints concerned local authorities.

Equal opportunity policies (sex and gender; disability, age)

21. The first official report examining the position of women in Irish society was
the 1972 Report of the Commission on the Status of Women. This report
identified a range of legislative and policy actions required in order to advance
the position of Irish women, most of them implemented later on.

22. The UN 2004 report about responses of countries to resolutions of Twenty-


Third Special Session of the General Assembly 2000[17] identifies main
developments in the period of 1995 - 2004 as follows:

An increase in womens labour force participation to 55% (for those aged 15-64).
A narrowing of the gender pay gap from 18% to 15% during the period 1994-2000.
Among significant mainstream measures to benefit women was the introduction of the
Statutory Minimum Wage in 2000.
There have been improvements in womens representation at management levels. The 2002
Census shows that percentage of women who are employers and managers is 45.8% in the
Border, Midland and Western Region and 47% in the Southern and Eastern Region. However,
only 3% of CEOs in private companies and 6% of Secretary Generals of Government
Departments are women.
Women now constitute 30% of state board representatives and 36% of Government nominees
to these bodies.

23. The proportion of women in bodies at all levels of government is comparable


with those of the neighbouring countries, but it is still a matter of concern. After
the 2011 elections, there were 25 women in the 166-seat House of
Representatives and 15 women in the 60-seat Senate (highest number ever).
There is a lot of discussion about this percentage and many actors propose to
redress the gender imbalance in Irish public life and to promote the participation
of women by introducing gender quotas in the selection of political party
candidates.

24. The Electoral (Political Funding) Act 2012 provides for the payment of state
funding to political parties being conditional on parties having at least 30%
women and 30% men candidates at the next general election. Seven years from
the general election where this provision first applies, this will rise to 40%.
There are several proposals in the Action Programme to promote gender
equality in local government.

25. Disabilities policies are relatively comprehensive in Ireland. For example, all
public authorities must have access officers, responsible for guaranteeing
access to the disabled. Some complaints on this issue have been handled by the
Ombudsman, indicating that people are aware about this right.

26. Sexuality issue is relatively a new topic in Ireland it was in 2011, for
example, that a Senator, who identifies herself as lesbian, became the first
member of the Oireachtas to be in a recognised same-sex relationship. However,
some public representatives in Ireland had publicly identified themselves as
being homosexual long before 2011.

Combating racism, intolerance and violence against women and children

27. According to the IHRC report, domestic violence remains a serious and
pernicious problem in modern Ireland. The State committed itself to take
stronger action on it, following its UN Universal Periodic Review (UPR) Hearing.
There remained a need to ensure the effective implementation of the National
Strategy on Domestic, Sexual and Gender-Based Violence 2010-2014[18],
including the implementation of the specific targets and timeframes set out in
the Strategy.

28. The Strategy has been drafted by the National Office for the Prevention of
Domestic, Sexual and Gender-based Violence, with the assistance of a broad
range of partners across the state and non-governmental sectors. Six
government departments, their agencies and up to 100 non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) are involved in work relevant to the prevention and
alleviation of abuse.

29. According to the IHRC report, the current difficult economic circumstances
create conditions for increased racist and xenophobic incidents as evidenced
elsewhere. However, the full extent of the problem is unclear insofar as there is
no independent monitoring of racial incidents, with the closure of the National
Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism (NCCRI) being a
contributing factor. The IHRC has called on the Government to renew the
National Action Plan Against Racism (NAPAR), which came to an end in 2008, or
to replace it with a similar programme.
Appendix 2
PROGRAMME OF THE CONGRESS MONITORING VISIT TO IRELAND

PART I: Dublin and Cork

3 5 October 2012

Congress delegation:

Rapporteurs:

Mr Michael COHEN Rapporteur on Local Democracy

Member of the Monitoring Committee of the


Congress

Chamber of Local Authorities, SOC[19]

Mayor of Kalkara (Malta)

Ms Merita JEGENI YILDIZ Rapporteur on Regional Democracy

Member of the Monitoring Committee of the


Congress

Chamber of Regions, EPP/CCE

Councillor, Provincial Council of Ankara


(Turkey)

Expert:

Prof. Juraj NEMEC Consultant

Member of the Group of Independent Experts of the


Congress on the European Charter of Local Self-
Government
(Slovak Republic)

Congress Secretariat:

Ms Sedef CANKOAK Co-Secretary of the Monitoring Committee of


the Congress
Wednesday, 3 October 2012

National Delegation to the Congress

Mr William CAREY, Head of the Irish Delegation to the Congress, Councillor,


Meath County Council

Ms Sinead GUCKIAN, Councillor, Leitrim Council

Ms Mary HEGARTY, Councillor, Bantry Town Council

Mr Des HURLY, Councillor, Carlow Town Council

Mr Vincent McHUGH, Councillor, Trim Town Council

Mr Michael OBRIEN, Councillor, Kilkenny County Council

Ms Paidraigin UI MHURCHADHA, Councillor, Monaghan Town Council

Ms Phyll BUGLER, Councillor, North Tipperary County Council

Ms Deirdre HEALY MCGOWAN, Councillor, Sligo County Council

Mr Jan ROTTE, Councillor, Lismore Town Council

Mr Liam KENNY, Secretary of Delegation, Association of County & City Councils


Office

Association of County and City Councils of Ireland

Cllr Hilary QUINLAN, New President

Mr Michael OBRIEN, Past President

Cllr Peter MCVITTY, Vice President

Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland

Mr Ted HOWLIN, President

Mr Tom RYAN, Director

Mr Mark DALTON

Mr Nicolas CROSS

Association of Irish Regions

Cllr. Tomas BREATHNACH, President of the Association of Irish Regions


Mr John BYRNE, Director of the Mid-East Regional Authority

Mr Stephen BLAIR, Director, Southern and Eastern Regional Assembly

Mr Jim CONWAY, Director of Dublin Regional Authority

Local Authority Members Association (LAMA)

Mr Hugh MCELVANEY, President

Mr Noel BOURKE, General Secretary

Specialists on issues of local government

Dr Mark CALLANAN, Lecturer, Institute of Public Administration

Dr Brid QUINN, Lecturer, Department of Politics & Public Administration,


University of Limerick

Committees of the Oireachtas (parliament) on Environment, Culture & the


Gaeltacht, on Finance, Public Expenditure & Reform and on Investigations,
Oversight & Petitions

Deputies:

Mr Kevin HUMPHREYS, Mr Ciarn LYNCH, Ms Catherine MURPHY, Mr Arthur


SPRING, Mr Peter MATHEWS, Mr Brian STANLEY, Mr Michael MCCARTHY, and
Mr Peter MATHEWS

Senators:

Mr Cit KEANE, Mr Aideen HAYDEN, Mr Trevor O'CLOCHARTAIGH and Mr Jimmy


HARTE

Office of the Ombudsperson

Ms Bernadette MCNALLY, Director General

Mr Tom MORGAN, Senior Investigator


Thursday, 4 October 2012

Department for the Environment, Community and Local Government

Mr Phil HOGAN, Minister for the Environment, Community and Local


Government

Ms Geraldine TALLON, Secretary General

Mr Des DOWLING, Assistant Secretary of Local Government Division

Mr Denis CONLAN, Principal Officer, Local Government Development

Department for Public Expenditure and Reform, Department of Public


Expenditure

Ms Deirdre HANLON, Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Policy Evaluation and


Management

Mr Paul REID, Assistant Secretary, Public Service Reform and Delivery

Ms Marie McLOUGHLIN, Principal, Environment, Community and Local


Government Vote

Mr Andrew CONLAN

Meath County Council and Trim Town Council


Ms Niamh McGOWAN, Chairperson of County Meath Council
Mr James OSHEA, Vice Chair of Trim Town Council
Mr Shane CASSELS, Councillor
Mr William CAREY, Councillor and Head of Irish Delegation to the Congress
Mr Brendan McGRATH, County Manager
Mr Ger MURPHY, Meeting Administrator
Ms Fiona LAWLESS, Head of Finance, Meath County

Supreme Court of Ireland

Mrs Susan DENHAM, Chief Justice

Mr Gerard HOGAN, High Court Judge

Local Government Audit Services

Mr Noel OCONNELL, Director

Mr Richard MURPHY, Principal Local Government Auditor

Friday, 5 October 2012


Dublin City and County Councillors

Mr Noaise O MUIRI, Lord Mayor of Dublin

Ms Mary FREEHILL, Chair of the Economic Development, Planning &


International Affairs Strategic Policy Committee

Ms Mary OSHEA, Chair of the Environment & Engineering Strategic Policy


Committee

Mr Dermot LACEY, Chair of the Housing, Social & Community Affairs Strategic
Policy Committee

Mr John TIERNEY, Chief Executive

Mr Vincent NORTON, Executive Manager (Director), City Managers & Corporate


Services Department

Mr Peter FINNEGAN, Director, Economic Development, International Relations &


Research Department

Mr Michael SANDS, Deputy Director, International Relations & Research


Department

Cork City and County Councillors

Ms Barbara MURRAY, Mayor of Cork County Council

Mr John BUTTIMER, Lord Mayor of Cork

Members of the Cork County Council

Members of the Cork City Council

Louis DUFFY, Director


Appendix 3
PROGRAMME OF THE CONGRESS MONITORING VISIT TO IRELAND

Part II: Dublin

3 May 2013

Congress delegation:

Rapporteurs:

Mr Michael COHEN Co-rapporteur on local democracy

Member of the Monitoring Committee of the


Congress

Chamber of Local Authorities, SOC[20]

Mayor of Kalkara (Malta)

Ms Merita JEGENI YILDIZ Co-rapporteur on regional democracy

Member of the Monitoring Committee of the


Congress

Chamber of Regions, EPP/CCE

Councillor, Provincial Council of Ankara


(Turkey)

Expert:

Prof. Juraj NEMEC Consultant

Member of the Group of Independent Experts of the


Congress on the European Charter of Local Self-
Government
(Slovak Republic)

Congress Secretariat:

Ms Sedef CANKOAK Co-Secretary of the Monitoring Committee of


the Congress
Friday, 3 May 2013

Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland (AMAI)

Mr Willie CALLAGHAN, President

Mr Tom RYAN, Director

Association of County and City Councils of Ireland (ACCC)

Cllr Hilary QUINLAN, President

Cllr Peter MCVITTY, Vice President

Association of Irish Regions

Cllr Tomas BREATHNACH, Chairperson, Association of Irish Regions

Mr Liam CONNEALLY, Honorary Secretary

Mr Jim CONWAY, Director, Dublin Regional Authority

Department for the Environment, Community and Local Government

Mr Phil HOGAN, Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government

Mr Denis CONLAN, Local Government Development Section

Ms Emma REEVES (Local Government Finance Section)

Mr Colm DOWNEY (Local Government Development Section

Mr Sean OSULLAOEBHAIN, Local Government Development Section

County and City Managers' Association (CCMA) /Local Government


Management Agency

Mr Daniel MCLOUGHLIN, Vice-Chair of CCMA, Westmeath County Manager

Mr Philip MAGUIRE, Dublin City Manager

Mr Ronan MURPHY, Office for Local Authority Management

National Delegation to the Congress

Mr Michael OBRIEN, Head of the Irish Delegation to the Congress


[1] The corapporteur Mr Michael Cohen is no longer a member of the Congress since September 2013. A new co-rapporteur
has been appointed by the Chair of the Monitoring Committee in accordance with Resolution 307 (2010) REV.

[2] L: Chamber of Local Authorities / R: Chamber of Regions

EPP/CCE: European Peoples Party Group in the Congress

SOC: Socialist Group

ILDG: Independent Liberal and Democratic Group

ECR: European Conservatives and Reformists Group

NR: Not registered

[3] Debated and approved by the Chamber of Local Authorities on 30 October 2013, and adopted by
the Congress on 31 October 2013, 3rd sitting (see Document CPL(25)5FINAL, explanatory
memorandum, presented by Andris Jaunsleinis, Latvia (L, ILDG) and Merita Jegeni Yildiz, Turkey (R,
EPP/CCE), rapporteurs).

[4] The corapporteur Mr Michael Cohen is no longer a member of the Congress since September 2013. A new co-rapporteur
has been appointed by the Chair of the Monitoring Committee in accordance with Resolution 307 (2010) REV.

[5] In their work, the rapporteurs were assisted by Professor Juraj Nemec, consultant, who is a member
of the Group of Independent Experts on the European Charter of Local Self-Government, and by Sedef
Cankoak, Co-Secretary of the Monitoring Committee of the Congress.

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/otherreleases/2011/measuringireland
sprogress2011.pdf

http://www.corkeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Irelands-Public-Debt.pdf

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-12-034/EN/KS-SF-12-034-EN.PDF

[9] http://politicalreform.ie/2010/08/05/female-candidacies-in-2009-local-elections/

[10] Cited in Local government in the Member States of the European Union: a comparative legal
perspective, ed. Angel-Manuel Moreno, National Institute of Public Administration, Spain, 2012, p.
319.

[11] Source: Local Government in the member States of the European Union: a comparative legal
perspective, by Angel Moreno Molina, National Institute of Public Administration, 2012. The
Government figures indicate that specific central government grants/subsidies constitute 22% and
general purposes grants/pension related deductions 17% of local government revenues, while
commercial rates and provision of goods and services provide 34% and 27% respectively.

[12] See http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/nuts_nomenclature/introduction

[13] The Government has drawn attention to the fact that the data published by Irelands Central Statistics Office would appear
to show average weekly earnings for a broad range of sectors higher than indicated here, and that the DECLG does not have
figures for total annual receipts by councillors.

[14] General purpose grant allocations for local authorities in 2012 amount to 651m. However, the
Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government has been required to withhold
some 15.7m of this amount due to the level of compliance with payment of the Household Charge in
the third quarter of 2012. In addition, local authorities will continue to retain pension-related
deductions in 2012, together with income from the 200 charge on non-principal private residences.
This will provide an adequate level of funding in 2012 for local authorities to provide a reasonable
level of local services to their communities.

http://www.ihrc.ie/download/pdf/ihrc_annual_report_2011.pdf

http://www.ucd.ie/mcri/resources/PositivePolitics-03pdf.pdf

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/Review/responses/IRELAND-English.pdf

http://www.cosc.ie/en/COSC/Final%20Electronic%20NS%20full%20doc%203%20March.pdf/Files/Fi
nal%20Electronic%

20NS%20full%20doc%203%20March.pdf

[19] EPP/CCE: European Peoples Party Group in the Congress

SOC: Socialist Group of the Congress

[20] EPP/CCE: European Peoples Party Group in the Congress

SOC: Socialist Group of the Congress

https://rm.coe.int/168071a75c#_ftn3