Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): I welcome David Porter, director of operations, and Kieran Brazier, head of the Reservoirs Bill team. You are very welcome. I ask you to take up to 10 minutes to address the Committee, and then we will ask some questions.

Mr David Porter (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): Thank you very much, Chairman. In all likelihood, we will not need 10 minutes.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): All the better.

Mr Porter: We provided you with a written briefing, and I just want to draw your attention to a couple of issues. This is really an update on the process more than anything. When we took up the issue of reservoirs, we identified a long list of bodies of water that we thought were reservoirs and, through this process, we have continued to refine the number down. When we went out to public consultation, it was sitting in and around 151. The last time we spoke, we had refined that down to 137, and we said that there was other work that we needed to do on some of those. The differences are with reservoirs that are very close to the 10,000 cubic metre threshold. We looked at the ones up to 15,000 cubic metres and those that were below. When we go into much more detail than in our initial rudimentary approach, we can find that there is less water in some of those and that they are not, therefore, subject to the legislation. We have managed to get down to 132 reservoirs that we think will be subject to the legislation.

I will draw out a couple of things from our findings. Even though we started with a long list, new reservoirs are still being uncovered by the work that we are doing, either through people saying that they have heard something about the Bill or, in one case, an MLA speaking to us about a particular structure. There is still a bit of a health warning about the figure of 132 in that the legislation will require owners to register, and it is only after we go through the registration process that we will be able to say absolutely what the number is. But we are content that we are getting closer to that figure. Some work is ongoing as we visit some of these structures to determine whether they are below the threshold. In some visits, we identified that we may need to do some survey work to determine with more certainty the capacity of the reservoir. There are still nine reservoirs that we are working on to determine capacity. Again, our hope — certainly, our thought at this stage — is that some of those will be likely to fall below the 10,000 cubic metre threshold. We are happy, when these next nine are done, to give you a written update or to come and speak to you. That is the reservoirs review. There are now 132 reservoirs.

I will just remind the Committee of the context to the reservoirs audit. We brought forward the Bill with the intention of introducing all the requirements in one fell swoop. The Committee had concerns about that, particularly in relation to the unknown — the condition of the reservoir stock — and we agreed to introduce the Bill in two phases. Phase 1 brings in the definition and the requirement to inspect, but not the recurring elements of reservoir management. We will bring in those elements in phase 2 when we can demonstrate the cost of bringing reservoirs up to a reasonable standard. That is what the reservoirs audit is attempting to do — it is to start the process of gathering the information in anticipation of the legislation hitting the statute book.

I must say that we have been very successful to date in encouraging private-sector and third-sector reservoir managers to take the assistance that is on offer and to start providing us with the information. You can see the figures: 94 have agreed to take part; 16 are undecided; and three have not responded. We are working through the 16 and the three to encourage them to avail themselves of the available funding. We believe we can demonstrate to them that it is in their best interests to provide us with the information, because what they get is a product, an inspection report, that will be able to satisfy the requirements of the legislation when it comes into place. So, they will get a double benefit. If we just do it ourselves, they only get the single benefit of us having the information; they do not get inspection report. We have found that, when we go out to the undecided and explain that to them, most people get it; they realise that this is a benefit. They may not like what they might find out, and we understand that. We are working through what that will mean with a number of reservoir managers and what their options are.

There were a couple of people who said that they did not want it and would prefer us to do it. In those cases, we went back just to make sure that they understood that decision. When staff went out and explained the consequences of that and that maybe they should rethink, some of them changed their minds and are availing themselves of the grant directly. Hopefully, we will be in a position where we have a very high degree of take-up and we will be able to produce a report. Maybe it will not be able to give 100% of the picture of the reservoir audit, but we will certainly get a picture in the high 90s in percentage terms of the audit condition.

The three who have not responded have given us some concern. Have we identified the right owner? Maybe it is more complex. Maybe it is held in trust. Maybe there are people who are deceased. Maybe it is held in some sort of complex company arrangement. They give us some concern, and we may well still have to work on those but, in the main, we are getting very good returns.

The last thing to say is that, if there are any reservoir managers who approach you as Committee members or as MLAs, if you can, please give them a bit of reassurance that, if they come and talk to us, we will do all that we can in our power to demonstrate that it is a good idea to take the £2,500 to get the inspection. We will do our best to explain to people that that is in their best interests. Also, they should talk to us early about the management regime, because we are now at the Final Stage of the legislation. We are fairly sure that it is OK and that that is going to be the regime going forward. The sooner we are in a conversation with the owners of the structures that may be problematic, the better it will be for them and for us. We do not want to get into a contentious relationship or enforcement. We would very much prefer to have an informal discussion to help them along that path so that we can come back to the Committee and report a high level of compliance and a plan for the reservoirs that are in poor order.

Hopefully, that has given you an insight into the position on the reservoir review and where we are with the reservoir audit.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Thank you very much, David. I think, for some people, there may be a fear factor and they are not sure what it all entails. That is why it is vital that they get all the information that is necessary. I see that 31 engineers have agreed to be available and that it is up to the reservoir owner to employ whichever one of those they want.

Mr Porter: That is correct. There was a concern at an early stage with the Committee that there was a dearth of those people, that there would not be enough and that, because only one lived in Northern Ireland, he would have a monopoly and could cause the prices to rise. There is clearly a very viable market. With 31 options, you will get somebody who will give you the service that you want at a competitive price.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): There is a grant of £2,500: is that a flat rate or is it up to £2,500?

Mr Porter: It is up to £2,500 because we recognised that some structures are less complex, so we are paying actuals up to a cap of £2,500.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): You would suspect that charges by engineers would vary according to the size of the reservoir.

Mr Porter: And the complexity of what they have to do. What also drives it is the availability of existing information. If they go out to a reservoir that we do not have a river model for and they are not sure of the inflows and outflows, they might have to develop that, whereas, in some cases, where we have an existing river model, we may well be able to give them a certain level of information that would start that process, and that would, therefore, be cheaper.

Mr Anderson: Thank you for the presentation. David, I note with interest that two reservoirs have been added to the database. One was previously considered incapable of retaining water.

Mr Porter: That is right.

Mr Anderson: It is now considered capable. Who made that decision? How did that come about? Originally, it was not capable of retaining water, and now it is. It is a reservoir in the higher designation.

Mr Porter: The upper reservoir at Creggan was not considered to be capable because it had failed in, I think, off the top of my head, 1972. It was considered that it could no longer hold water because it had lost the content of the reservoir. However, a site visit indicated that, whilst an element of it had failed, there could be a scenario in which that failure, blockage or hole in the reservoir could be blocked. Therefore, it is still technically capable.

Mr Anderson: Was it inspected? Was the decision based on the reason why it had failed back in 1972?

Mr Porter: There is no requirement on anybody to inspect until such times —

Mr Anderson: OK.

Mr Porter: Again, we are working on information to give an indication of the scale of the problem. It is not that a statutory decision or inspection was made, because that will come into place only when we have the reservoir audit. However, there is a benefit, and it is another example of where our engagement with people may help. Since we flagged up that that reservoir may well be subject to the legislation, which is currently not applicable, the reservoir manager is at least allowed to say, "Actually, it failed. Maybe there are some works I could do to that structure today and get signed off by an engineer that would mean that, whenever the legislation comes into place, it will not be a reservoir. Therefore, I would not be subject to the burden." So, I would not take it as a negative that that has been flagged up. It is a positive, because he is getting an early warning and he has a period in which to take measures to make sure that it is not a reservoir under the legal definition. That is the way he has viewed it in our discussions with him.

Mr Anderson: Are there possibly any others like that that we do not know about?

Mr Porter: We have identified a couple that have failed. At least one came back onto our list. We looked at it and thought it was not capable, but it is back on. It was part of the 137, previously. Again, a similar conversation will have taken place with the reservoir manager to say, "I know it's not holding water today, but we believe it is potentially capable. Therefore, maybe, more works are required to make sure that it is not capable." The most important thing is that, if you are going to do any works like that, make sure that you get an engineer to sign it off so that we are satisfied. You do not want to have done the work only for us to think that it is still a reservoir. Make sure you do that bit properly, so that we can, with evidence, take it off the database and no longer pursue it.

Mr Anderson: How accurate is the assessment or the measurement of 10,000 cubic metres? Are there any sitting on the borderline between designations?

Mr Porter: Quite a range were in or around 10,000 cubic metres. That is where we have focused the reservoir review and why we refined it to see whether our assumptions were OK or had been overestimating the size. We have identified some where we have had to go out and physically measure them and get a survey done of the structure and the impoundment in order to determine how much water is actually held in them. You are right: some were like that, but we are trying to address it. That is one of the reasons why —

Mr Anderson: That would have been a survey, not a desktop exercise.

Mr Porter: Initially, it was a desktop exercise. Off the top of my head, the threshold was from about 7,500 to 15,000 cubic metres. That was our focus area. We knew that we needed to be sure about those structures. We wanted to ensure that we were not requiring owners to comply with the Bill when, at a later date, it might be shown that they did not need to be compliant with it. Those were the structures that we were focused on. Equally, if a reservoir manager feels that they are still on the list, tell them to come and talk to us. It may well be worth their while doing a little work at this stage to determine what the capacity is, if they think it is marginal and that it might be below 10,000. I suspect that that would be a lot cheaper than the full weight of the reservoir legislation for ever and ever.

Mrs Dobson: My question has largely been covered by Sydney. Has the Department conducted a review to see if there are any other reservoirs that you have not found? I think you broadly answered that, David. Would it not have been better to have held information on reservoirs ahead of the Bill, over the last few years, or would that not have been possible, given the circumstances in which these reservoirs then came to light?

Mr Porter: We had a number of exercises to determine the number of reservoirs. As I said, we ended up with a long list, about 200 bodies of water, some of which were natural lakes or quarry ponds, not what we would have considered reservoirs.

Mrs Dobson: You started eliminating them.

Mr Porter: We whittled that down. That was primarily a desktop exercise. We are now finding, as we get close to thinking about starting the legislation, that other people are bringing bodies of water to our attention and asking, "Well, is this a reservoir?" That is how we found the one in Craigmore that we were not aware of. But I suspect that a very high percentage of the reservoirs are on our list.

Mrs Dobson: Do you think it is unlikely that any more will be brought to your attention?

Mr Porter: If there are more, they are certainly in the single figures, and low single figures. We are fairly content that the process to get the number right has been as exhaustive as possible.

Mr Milne: Since you started work on the Reservoirs Bill, has anybody offloaded ownership of a reservoir to NI Water or sold one or anything like that? Is there any evidence of that?

Mr Porter: None have been sold that I am aware of, but Northern Ireland Water has 48 reservoirs, of which 16 or 17 are not required for the purpose of supplying water to the public, and its intention is to dispose of them. The Bill has probably made that process slightly more complex. I am not sure that there are ready buyers in the current climate. I am not aware of any that have been sold in the period during which the Reservoirs Bill has been brought forward.

Mr Byrne: Just for clarification, who owns Creggan upper reservoir?

Mr Porter: There are Creggan upper, middle and lower reservoirs, and all three sit within Creggan Country Park. You may recall that you got evidence from Creggan Country Park during your scrutiny of the Bill. Creggan Country Park is the manager, as we understand it, of those structures.

Mr Byrne: The council is still the ultimate owner.

Mr Porter: I believe that the council may well have some responsibility through ownership of the land, but certainly, from our discussions with Creggan Country Park, they recognise that they have day-to-day responsibility for the structures and would therefore be considered the reservoir manager under the Bill.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): What happens in the event of an engineer ascertaining that a reservoir is in a very dangerous state and could fail at any time? Have you a system in place to deal with that? You cannot take the risk of leaving repairs undone for months on end.

Mr Porter: What happened in Camlough is a good example. The engineer who was called to view the structure was concerned and the bodies, therefore, stepped in. In that case, the bodies — Northern Ireland Water and Newry and Mourne District Council — understood the risk and had access to resources to deal with an incident or to avert an incident. The situation is more complex if the reservoir audit identifies a private owner. We have said in the past in Committee that, whilst there would be no onus on the reservoir manager to do anything in law, if we had that information and they had that information, we would have a discussion with them about how to deal with the situation.

If a situation is absolutely critical and the reservoir is at the point of failure, the Department may well have to step in and offer assistance in the interests of public safety. We continually make the point as we bring the Bill forward that it is in the interests of public safety. If the Department knows that something is in poor condition, it certainly needs to engage with the owner of the structure to work out how that can be addressed, and there would be a responsibility on the Department as the reservoir authority to take the matter very seriously. If something were at the point of failure, I suspect that we would take a very close look at what steps were required to minimise that likelihood. I am talking theoretically because, first, we have not identified any, thankfully; and, secondly, those decisions will be very much bespoke to the situation. It would depend on who the owner is, what other resources they have, whether drawing down the water level releases pressure in the short term, or whether more significant expenditure in the interests of public safety is required immediately. That is a very general answer, but I think you get the gist of where we are.

Mr Milne: Are you aware of reservoirs in co-ownership?

Mr Porter: Quite a few of them are.

Mr Milne: Do you know, off the top of your head, how many? I suppose the question of who will take on the management is an arrangement between the partners.

Mr Kieran Brazier (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): For a lot of the undecided in the private sector, the issue is not so much the audit but who owns it and who owns which part of it. We are liaising with partners on different reservoirs to get them together to make that decision. Of the eight in the private sector that are undecided, in five or six cases it is because of co-ownership.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): OK. Thank you very much again, David and Kieran.