Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): We welcome Ms Alison Clydesdale, director of water drainage and policy, Department for Infrastructure; Mr Gary Quinn, director of rivers operations, Department for Infrastructure; and Mr Jonathan McKee, director or rivers development, Department for Infrastructure. Thank you for coming to the Committee again. We really appreciate it.

I seek agreement that the evidence can be recorded by Hansard.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): We are still discussing the Reservoirs Act, and there are still some areas that need clarity. There is still some further information that needs to come back to the Committee, but in the meantime we are seeking some clarity on some of the issues. If you make a brief opening statement, I will come to members' questions.

Mr Gary Quinn (Department for Infrastructure): Chair, I would like to make the opening statement, if that is OK.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Yes.

Mr Quinn: Good morning, Chair and members. Thank you for the invitation. We welcome the opportunity to provide a further briefing to the Committee about the legislative framework on reservoir safety in Northern Ireland. My name is Gary Quinn, acting director of river operations, and Alison and Jonathan are also here. If the Chair is content, I do not intend to repeat much of what has been said in the previous introductions. I propose to outline some of the key points from a departmental perspective, having heard various recent briefings on the matter, and then my colleague Jonathan will come in with a few key points towards the end. We will keep it fairly brief.

I note from the various briefings that reservoir safety for users and operators and its importance to society are recognised and understood by the Committee. We continue to advise that, without the Act's being fully commenced, a significant public safety risk remains. In the context of the Department's wider responsibilities for managing flood risk, we have, in line with the floods directive, developed sound flood risk management strategies in the North to mitigate the threat of flooding from rivers and the sea. We have put in place, for example, proactive flood alleviation measures for areas of known risk, well-developed emergency flood plans and emergency flood plans in areas where schemes are not viable, which we continue to develop. We have 50 regional community resilience groups. However, without the Act's being further commenced, the Department is unable to provide sufficient assurance on the condition, management or maintenance of many reservoirs. That is just to set the context. That leaves a gap in our ability to mitigate all the flood risks and regulate reservoir managers who have responsibility for their structures in order to mitigate the potentially catastrophic impacts of reservoir failures and prevent uncontrolled water releases from dam failures and the risk to life and property that such water releases present.

In terms of affected properties, the Act, once fully commenced, will regulate the safety of controlled reservoirs to mitigate the flood risk to about 83,000 people who live and work in the inundation areas of the 173 potential controlled reservoirs that the Department is aware of. I note that there has been detailed consideration of the number of reservoirs, their ownership and responsibility for them. For the record, the Department is aware of 173 potential reservoirs in Northern Ireland. I can take further questions on that if you like, because I know from previous briefings that consideration has been given to possible differences in numbers. The number of 173 is down from 176, which is the number that you will probably have heard from the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe) team, because three reservoirs were recently removed from the register. That was done on the recommendation of a panel of engineers who provided recommendations, oversight and sign-off of the decision that those three reservoirs should no longer be considered to be controlled reservoirs.

I prefer not to be specific about location, given the sensitive nature of the data, but I can say that we are confident that the number represents an accurate picture of the known risks. I trust that you have been provided with a breakdown, but I am happy to give a categorisation of the figures. Of the 173 reservoirs, Northern Ireland Water has 93, 44 are in private ownership, 18 are for councils, 11 sit with not-for-profit organisations and seven are under the control of Departments, including DFI Rivers, which controls and manages six.

I will hand over to Jonathan, who will outline a couple of points.

Mr Jonathan McKee (Department for Infrastructure): Good morning, Chair and members. Thank you for having us. I will make four points to conclude.

I note that there has been discussion about the reservoir issue and how real the risk is. Our earlier remarks have, hopefully, clarified that we view the risk as real, continuing and, in some cases, likely to be worsening. Without full commencement of the Act, the Department does not have the necessary means to regulate reservoir safety here. In addition, it is important to state that reservoir managers should not view the Act as an unnecessary regulatory burden but as an assurance that the safety of their reservoir is being managed and that, in the event of dam failure, their liability may therefore be more limited.

It is also important to clarify that the Department has done all that is reasonable in the absence of the full commencement of the Act. For the Department to go further and intervene in those structures would overextend our reach and divert our limited resources from areas of work for which we have statutory responsibility and that are also about protecting life and property. For clarification, if an emergency scenario were to develop, it is not always the case that it would develop slowly. Should a reservoir dynamically fail, a multi-agency response would be activated, but, if there were a sudden collapse rather than a progressive failure, there would simply not be time to take preventative action. That is one of the key considerations that explains why it is so important for the Reservoirs Act to be fully commenced.

Those are just a few brief opening remarks to put in context why we feel that the legislation is so important. We are happy to explain in any way we can any of the activities that we have undertaken since 2015.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK. Thank you. Nobody around the table is saying that there is not a safety concern. We understand that there is a safety concern, but we are trying to ascertain or understand whether there may be unintended consequences of the legislation that we are bringing in and what it might mean for local groups, private landowners, etc. Whilst there may not be a regulated burden placed on owners, there will be a financial aspect, which we have to take into consideration for local clubs. That is a major issue, which has been borne out in some of the evidence sessions that we have had. What it might mean in the future is a key concern.

Let me clarify at the outset the figures that you gave, Gary. Have I noted them down correctly? You said 173 down from 176.

Mr Quinn: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): That is as a result of the Assembly's research, as in —?

Mr Quinn: The research that was provided recently.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Yes. You said that those three had been taken off the register.

Mr Quinn: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Did they provide an engineer's report to DFI for that to happen?

Mr Quinn: Yes. Specialist information was obtained from reservoir panel engineers.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Are they private reservoirs, council maintained or what?

Mr Quinn: One belongs to us, and the two others are private, as I understand it.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Can anybody do that at this moment? They are now taken off the register but the legislation — sorry, am I being thick here? How can they do that when the legislation is not —?

Mr Quinn: That has always existed. Over the last number of years, we have had a number of reservoir managers who subscribed to the Reservoir Act in the theory. If they bring us specialist information from reservoir panel engineers, expert advice, we have to take that advice on board. Absolutely.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK. I need to ask about sudden collapse. There are 11 reservoirs that you are concerned about. Where do you expect that a sudden collapse will happen, having looked at what you have right now?

Mr McKee: We cannot provide that information. We are aware of 11 reservoirs where urgent interventions were needed. Some action has been taken by some managers, but that is to varying extents, and it has not been signed off by a suitably qualified reservoir engineer.

It is not possible to predict where sudden collapses will occur. A whole range of factors is involved in a failure mechanism for a reservoir. Obviously, they include the condition of the reservoir, but they also include flows that could enter into the catchment at any particular time. If those flows are excessive and start to spill over the crest of the reservoir, that could cause erosion, which may not be obvious today but could happen dynamically and very quickly and cause that reservoir to collapse. Therefore, it is not possible to look at the 173 reservoirs and say, "These two or three reservoirs will be subject to a sudden collapse". It is just not possible to do that.

Because of that uncertainty and because it is set against a backdrop of risk, the Act, fully commenced, will give the Department greater visibility on the condition of the reservoirs and greater assurance that they are being managed appropriately.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Is there a situation in which the Department may have to step in? I will give you an example. Let us say there is a local group that has no capital or funding. The business case has not gone through, and we do not know what the extent of the grant will be, but the reservoir is deemed as of high consequence and may need remedial work done pretty quickly. Does the Department step in, in that case? What is the situation there?

Mr McKee: To be clear, because I think that there has been some misunderstanding around this, the Department will not step in and assume the management responsibility of those reservoirs, even though some of them require matters in the interest of safety to be undertaken. The Department would be overextending its reach. It is private infrastructure, largely, that we are talking about.

In a scenario where a reservoir is dynamically failing, and it is clear that an emergency is going to unfold, a multi-agency response would be activated, and the Department will certainly play a part in that. There is a sense that, if a reservoir is in poor condition, the Department will step in to do the necessary work, but, to be clear, that is not the situation. That would clearly be the Department going beyond its reach.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): How does the Department envisage the scope of the grant scheme around the cost and eligibility? The Ulster Angling Federation gave evidence, and, whilst it accepted that the full cost may not always be there, it gave some examples of how it felt the Department should look at geography and the consequences etc. Is that on the Department's radar when looking at how the business case is being worked up?

Ms Alison Clydesdale (Department for Infrastructure): As I have said previously, the Department is currently finalising a consultation on inspection and supervision costs under the Act. The Minister has indicated that it will be made available to those who need it, so an element of means testing will be introduced into it. The consultation will contain the eligibility criteria, and once the consultation is published and we have feedback, it will then shape the business case that will go forward to DOF.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): To be clear, when do you expect that consultation to come out?

Ms Clydesdale: The consultation is just being finalised and will come out once the Minister has approved it.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): So, you have no timescale for that consultation being finalised?

Ms Clydesdale: It is finalised but is subject to ministerial clearance. We are just finalising a few bits of it. I cannot give you an exact date.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): It is with the Minister?

Ms Clydesdale: It is not with the Minister at the moment, no.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK. Just going back for clarity, given the potential health and safety issues, what resource or capital funding will be set aside by the Department to allow it to arrange any safety measures, as provided for under the Act?

Ms Clydesdale: The Minister will make resource and capital allocations in line with the normal budget process. We do not anticipate there being a huge demand for grant support in 2025-26 because the legislation is not through. Without the legislation, we do not have the powers to make the grant. People will not need to apply for a grant until they are designated. When the legislation comes in, people will register — there is a six-month window for that — and then they will be designated. Once they are designated, they can apply for a grant. However, allocations for such things will be made by the Minister in line with the normal budget procedures.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): How does the Department define "safety measures"?

Mr McKee: "Matters in the interest of safety" is a term used by specialist reservoir engineers. When they carry out their work and produce a report, they identify what they call "matters in the interest of safety". That can include a whole range of things, such as bank stabilisation work, erecting signage, dealing with erosion issues and dealing with reinforcements needed to the crest of the reservoir. It can also involve recommending a further study, which is called a flood study. That, in itself, can identify further matters in the interests of safety. It can really be anything that is determined by the specialist engineer as being necessary for the safe management of the reservoir.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): As you said, there has been some confusion around that. The Department will not step in for emergency remedial action.

Mr McKee: The Department has its own stock of reservoirs, and it will do what is necessary for those in line with the provisions in the Act. For private infrastructure or infrastructure owned by other public bodies, it is a matter for them to make the necessary investments. The assets are owned by them and are their responsibility.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I appreciate that, as per the legislation, reservoir managers still have to register and that there is then the six-month period. From the evidence that has been provided to the Committee previously, however, I know that you have been in communication with those who are on your systems at the moment. When the anglers came to the Committee, it seemed to me that there was a slight concern about what the leasing of land might mean for communication, in that a landowner may receive communication, but a local angler or group may not receive that information: they may not be aware of it and may, therefore, find themselves, unwittingly, faced with being a reservoir manager because they lease the land. Has the Department considered that?

Mr Quinn: We generally correspond with the owners and not those who lease the reservoirs. There could be a series of private agreements that we have not had sight of that may confer responsibilities onto lessees or others. We generally communicate with the owners. The Reservoir Act allows us to engage with those parties further. We look, for example, to the Environment Agency in England, which has put in place engagement procedures. It has stakeholder engagement sessions, where some of the issues around reservoirs and associated matters can be spelled out. For the time being, however, we generally communicate with only the owners.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK. This is the final question from me. We had an oral evidence session with you on 2 April. We then sought further information on the methodology for determining the capacity and on what the factors for calculating and determining the cubic volume of a reservoir are. We received a response from the Minister on 18 April, which I will quote, if you do not mind. It states:

"capacity" is underlined —

I note that the Department has emphasised that, as specified in the Act, the 10,000 cubic metres is determined by capacity rather than by the actual water that is held. Would an empty reservoir be required, therefore, in order to comply and to incur costs for inspection and the undertaking of remedial improvement that has been identified as being necessary? We are aware of people dewatering. What would the situation be in that case?

Mr McKee: Two terms that are used in the Act are "discontinuance" and "abandonment". Discontinuance is when someone takes the capacity of a reservoir to below 10,000 cubic meters. Abandonment is when somebody drains a reservoir so that it is not capable of holding or retaining any water. For either of those actions to be carried out, a specialist reservoir engineer has to certify them. A reservoir manager could not do that themselves and just leave the reservoir in the assumption that it has been discontinued and abandoned; they need to have it formally signed off by a specialist engineer. The reason for that is that, in drawing down and emptying a reservoir, you need to make sure that, if a large storm were to come, the reservoir would not fill up again unintentionally. That goes back to your earlier point about unintended consequences, Chair. That would most definitely be an unintended consequence and could lead more readily to a catastrophic failure because the impoundment structure may have dried out in the intervening months, and, if that is the case, it would not be able to withstand the normal loading arrangement.

Yes, it is possible to do that, and we are aware of some people who have drawn down their reservoirs, but a specialist engineer needs to sign it off to say that either the lower capacity or the scenario in which the reservoir is completely empty is managed sustainably.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK. We will move on.

Mr Stewart: Thanks, folks, for coming back. You have been very generous with your time. We appreciate that. The Chair has covered a lot of the key points, but I want to return to the 11 reservoirs where you think that intervention is particularly needed. Has there been an analysis of the potential costs to bring the reservoirs up to an acceptable standard, or does that need to be done after an inspection by the owner? Does the Department make a rough assessment of the potential costs?

Mr McKee: Is that for the 11 reservoirs?

Mr Stewart: For the 11 that are most affected, and that will be a good guide for the worst-case scenario. Has that been done?

Mr McKee: It might be helpful to explain to members how we arrived at the figure of 11.

Mr Stewart: Yes. That would be good.

Mr McKee: I will take it from the top-level figure down. In 2016, there was an audit, and 105 reservoir managers participated. Excluding NI Water's reservoirs, because they are generally managed in the spirit of the Act, there are 59 reservoirs. Of the 59 reservoirs, 45 were identified as being in poor or very poor condition, and that is a very high percentage. However, of those 45 reservoirs, 12 were owned by government — Departments and councils — six had been repaired, and one was discontinued. That left 26 reservoirs that needed to be focused on, and they were surveyed in 2020. Out of those 26 reservoirs, it was identified that urgent interventions were needed in nine.

In 2021, we identified that 17 reservoir managers did not take part in the audit. Two of those reservoirs were owned by NI Water, and there were particular reasons for that. The other 15 reservoirs were also surveyed in 2021 using the same approach and methodology as was used in 2020. Out of those 15 reservoirs, it was identified that two needed urgent intervention. The two and nine are the 11 reservoirs.

Safety issues have been identified in those 11 reservoirs, and some reservoir managers have taken some steps to address the issues. We are not aware of any reservoir managers who have gone through the full cycle of the necessary work that has been signed off as complete. We are not aware of the individual costs. For the Department to be aware of the individual costs, it would require designs to be worked up and the reservoir managers to share those costs with us. It is also important to note that, very often, when a reservoir has been assessed for the first time, one of the safety issues will be to carry out a flood study. There will be obvious issues that need to be addressed, such as the embankment. However, there will need to be a further study to determine whether the spillway of the reservoir can safely discharge the flow of water that may arrive at the reservoir over the bank and not cause erosion or the dynamic catastrophic failure that I outlined earlier.

I am not aware of any reservoir manager who has undertaken a flood study. That could lead to more work, and if a spillway is involved, the works could be more expensive. That is not the clear, crisp answer that you wanted, but I am trying to explain —

Mr Stewart: That is the way it goes sometimes.

Mr McKee: — some of the nuances and complexity of the layers of the issue.

Mr Stewart: That takes me to my next question, which is about grant support. A costing will be done based on the outworkings going forward. Is it envisaged that the grant support will go beyond the initial inspection cost for an owner that could stray into the flood study? I do not know how much that costs. Is it envisaged that there will be additional support, year-on-year, should there need to be a significant intervention that the private owner cannot afford? Do you anticipate that the grant will be solely for inspection purposes initially?

Ms Clydesdale: We are focused on the grant for inspection and supervision costs. Further stages of a grant would be subject to ministerial consideration, and we would need to advise the Minister on that.

Mr Stewart: Will that potentially be a cost on the back of the costs that are borne from the inspections? If we do not know how much the 11 reservoirs will cost, we do not have a clue what the potential costs to repair the reservoirs could be.

Ms Clydesdale: That is right. It is important to state that the inspections will not produce a cost. They will produce a list of actions that need to be carried out, and, as Jonathan has said, they will need to be designed. At that point, there will be a cost and a much better evidence base to develop any further stages of potential grant assistance.

Mr Stewart: I am sure that you watched — or, at least, watched back — the really good evidence session that we had with the Ulster Angling Federation. It made really good representation about the size and scale of, and the number of people who are involved in, fishing and sports on our reservoirs across Northern Ireland. It made the valid point about support for those who cannot afford inspections. I am interested to know whether you have consulted with the federation directly. Do you envisage that? Alison, you mentioned the new consultation that will happen. Do you envisage working with the federation to bottom that out?

Ms Clydesdale: In the previous consultation, in 2022, which set out the regulations, we engaged with anglers. Of course, once we put out another consultation, we will engage with anyone who wishes to engage with us.

Mr Boylan: You are very welcome here again. I have a slightly different take on the issue because, in my experience, it has been around a long time and we have had a lot of conversation. I appreciate, Gary, that you are saying that, whilst the owners might not communicate down to anglers, which was the Chair's point, there is an opportunity for consultation there. Obviously, you should read a contract when you sign it. People should know what they are signing up to. We have had a good conversation with the anglers. They are genuine. They use the reservoirs, and all that.

We are all talking about the spell of good weather we are having at this time. That can cause its own problems, because, normally, following a spell of good weather, there is a good spell of rain. That has a knock-on effect. We are talking about health and safety, the threat to property and the risk to life. What will be the main impact if we do not fully commence the Act? We need all that to carry out those inspections and for people to do the job that the Act requires them to do. The conversation is about funding, the anglers and everything else. We need to have the regulations in place so that we can engage more and move that process forward. I have listened very carefully to those concerns in the conversation. Given that, in the past couple of years, we have had problems with flooding and other issues — unfortunately, I have seen that happen at this time of year in the Armagh area — what would be the major impacts of not commencing the legislation? What will be the outworkings over, say, the next 12 or 14 months, three, four or five years, or whatever?

Mr McKee: I will answer some of your questions, Cathal, and maybe Gary or Alison will feed in. In my opening remarks, I pointed out that the risk is real and continuing. There are 173 reservoirs, and 83,000 people live in the inundation zones of those reservoirs. There are roughly 48,000 buildings in those zones. Urgent interventions were needed at 11 reservoirs, and 1,100 people live in the inundation zones of those reservoirs.

Reservoir flooding is different from flooding from rivers, coastal flooding or surface water because, sometimes, it is caused by a slow failure and gets progressively worse over a number of days. We saw that in Toddbrook in England, where even a reservoir that was managed in accordance with the Reservoirs Act that has been in place over there for many years was starting to fail. It allowed there to be an emergency response. That is not always the case. You have seen catastrophic reservoir failure in other parts of Europe and other countries. Due to the large release of water, there is a very real risk to life. There are significant flows and velocities. For those reasons, we are doing our best to try to explain the severity of the issue, the real risk that we face and the importance of the Act.

Even in recent years, for example, there were real concerns about Camlough reservoir back in 2014. An emergency response was activated. The two reservoir managers there were very proactive in doing what needed to be done. The reservoir was upgraded and so on.

Just because there has been no loss of life here does not mean that the risk is less here than it is in England, Scotland or Wales; it just means that, mercifully, it has not occurred here yet. As time progresses and rainfall events and rainfall patterns change, I grow increasingly concerned about the issue. Back in October 2023, for example, there was significant rainfall in the south-east.

I had concerns: would this be the rainfall event that triggered a reservoir collapse? When you are dealing with a real-life scenario — flooding and homes flooding — thoughts about reservoirs come into your mind. This is not a "it would be nice to do" from our point of view; it is essential legislation for the toolbox to manage flood risk. [Inaudible.]

Mr Quinn: I have been before this Committee before. I have reported on the flooding in the south-east and provided the Committee with an indication of what the climate science was telling us. The south and east event, to put it in context, was in the order of 180mm of rain over a four- or five-day period. Climatologists are telling us that what was experienced in central Europe last year was after 400mm over the same period, so that is highly likely here over the next decade or slightly beyond. That is the context in which this sits.

Reservoirs in Europe that were well regulated and properly looked after had problems. There was cracking and some problems with embankments. That was evidenced across Europe last year. We are not talking about storms that are off the scale or of the size seen in Valencia last year. Storm Boris had impacts on the infrastructure of dams across central Europe that were well regulated and maintained. What I fear most from an operational perspective is climate. Having higher-intensity rainfall episodes of that scale is possible in the near future.

Ms Clydesdale: On the legislative side, I think that your question, Cathal, was about what happens if this legislation does not come forward. If it did not come forward, the Department would not have any powers to introduce a regulatory framework or be able to introduce the grant scheme that we talked about.

Mr Boylan: That is it. Those are the two key points that the Chair raised. One is the funding scheme, which is fine, and there is consultation on that. The other is communication. You said that there is a process in England. There have been a lot of conversations over the years. Did you go to England or have conversations with your counterparts there?

Mr Quinn: On engagement, we looked at the role of the Environment Agency. A large part of engagement is getting out the messages about reservoir safety and how reservoirs are used. There are also public safety issues. The Environment Agency has very good information that we look to and lean on in how we wish to administer reservoirs here.

Mr Boylan: Thank you.

Mr Dunne: Thank you, folks, for the presentation. Alison, I think that you touched on the grant scheme. For the sake of clarity, will you go over the time frames? When do you envisage it being in place? Will it be in the next financial year? You mentioned 2025-26, or will it be in the following financial year?

Ms Clydesdale: Obviously, it cannot be in place until the legislation is in place, and it will then require approval from the Minister. The point at which people would need to apply is the point at which a reservoir is designated.

Mr Dunne: When do you envisage the scheme opening?

Ms Clydesdale: People would have six months in which to register, and there would be another period in which to designate. From the point at which the legislation came into force, there would be up to six months to register. Some people might register sooner. Some might be ready to register on day 1, and they will then require a designation. It is at the point of designation that application would open. However, the application process would then allow people to apply for grants to cover supervision and inspection costs. The inspection is not required to be completed until 12 months from the point at which the designation takes effect. The funding, or, if you like, the paying of the money, would not be until that point. That is why I am saying that we do not think that it would be in the 2025-26 financial year. Even if we have applications, people will have another 12 months to get the inspection done once they appoint their engineer.

Mr Dunne: I reiterate that there is uncertainty and concern out there. Many groups are modest in size and have modest resources. There are examples of sites having been abandoned, panic decisions being made and knee-jerk reactions to what is potentially coming down the track, which might not that bad. However, those fears are real, and engagement is important for you. Is there a danger of site abandonment? Is that a real issue that you are concerned about?

Mr McKee: I think that it is possible. It is about whether the Act is fully commenced. I want to provide a few assurances. We will communicate as necessary, and we are very open to any suggestions about further or improved communication with reservoir managers and others. We want to be clear and helpful on the issue.

We have heard a lot this morning about risk, and it is right that we talk about that, but let us look at things from a reservoir manager's perspective. They have a responsibility in common law to keep their infrastructure safe. The regulatory framework that is envisaged by the Act will give them assurance that, were a failure to occur, they would be able to demonstrate that they had taken reasonable steps in accordance with the Act. The framework would give them further assurance. There is a separate discussion about the grant, and we have touched on that.

Some reservoir managers may decide to lower their reservoir's capacity to below 10,000 cubic metres. Generally speaking, that would take the reservoir outside the scope of the Act. There is an important point here, however, which is that, if they do that, they have a common law responsibility. Let us say that an owner reduces the reservoir from 15,000 cubic metres to 8,000 cubic metres. They still have a common law responsibility for that reservoir at an 8,000 cubic meter capacity. There is still a responsibility for that structure. Taking the reservoir out of the scope of the Act does not mean that their responsibilities are taken away. Some may decide to completely drain the reservoir. To do that, or even to lower its capacity, would require a whole range of approvals, environmental considerations and due process. We can explain what those are to any interested reservoir manager. As I said earlier, lowering the reservoir or draining it completely would need to be signed off. Some reservoir managers, however, could decide that they do not want to manage the structure at all, and that risk remains. We would need to take specialist legal advice if those scenarios were to develop.

Mr Dunne: OK, thanks.

Mr McMurray: Thank you very much: you have already covered a lot. Something that was mentioned in passing was in my head too. I do not want to catastrophise, but I have been in the south-east, and I have attended some of your professional development talks on the almighty events and all the rest of it. I want to go back to the issue around the Toddbrook reservoir at Whaley Bridge. What learnings were taken from that? What role did legislation play? We are looking at the safety issues here. I cannot recall learning of a dam breach in my living memory, but Toddbrook was probably the highest-profile incident of recent times. What learning was taken from that?

Mr McKee: That reservoir was managed in accordance with the Act in England. The reservoir failed, and there was an emergency response. Subsequently, a review was undertaken, and its learnings, if my memory serves me correctly, were fed back to the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE). Those learnings inform the professional considerations of specialist reservoir engineers who go out to look at reservoirs in England, Scotland, Wales and here. Learning from Toddbrook will have been applied here.

Mr Quinn: Also, there was learning for the emergency planning board on the modelling of that incident and what that might look like. We have carried out reservoir exercises to determine what should be done in the event of a failure. On the back of the lessons that were learned, plans are now in place for our reservoirs. It was very good from an emergency planning perspective.

Mr McMurray: Thank you. I am going through my notes just to get my head around it. We have touched on this before, but it is important. Once those inspections take place, every reservoir will, presumably, have different needs. I presume, then, that, whatever grant scheme is in place and whenever it opens, it will be fluid enough — if that is not a bad analogy with reservoir breaches — to cope with the various needs that arise. Is that the plan?

Ms Clydesdale: As I said, when we have a more defined evidence base, we can put advice to the Minister on potential second stages of grant assistance. The Minister has been clear that the grant should support those who need it, and we have to meet the requirements of 'Managing Public Money' and provide best value for money. All that will have to be tested when we have a better evidence base.

Mr McMurray: I will touch on one of the points that Mr Dunne made. Some of these reservoirs are not profit-making. Will that be taken into consideration? We talk about the unintended consequences, but there are also environmental unintended consequences. Will this be looked at from not only a social point of view but an environmental one? Will all those factors be taken into consideration?

Ms Clydesdale: In the grant scheme?

Mr McMurray: Yes.

Ms Clydesdale: Again, we have not given much consideration to what a future grant scheme might look like because of the lack of evidence base for what is required. Information from the inspections and supervision will better inform the discussion. How further grant elements may come forward will be a ministerial decision.

Mr McMurray: May I ask a last quick question, Chair?

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Yes.

Mr McMurray: Let me touch on flooding in the south-east and almighty events. One of the things that has been mooted is the construction of reservoirs for storing water upstream. Would this affect that sort of proposal? Again, that is hypothetical, and we are quite far down the road on this, but I am curious to hear your initial reading of it.

Mr Quinn: If it is above the 10,000 cubic metre threshold, it will fall within the Reservoirs Act, and we will have to maintain it. We already maintain six structures, so, if we have to build flood storage for Newry, for instance, it will fall under the Reservoirs Act, and we will be responsible for complying.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Chair

Mr K Buchanan: Thank you for coming along with additional information. I did not grasp, Gary, the explanation of how the 176 became 173? How did those three — excuse the term — disappear? I did not get or grasp that.

Mr Quinn: Let me explain it in a fuller context. In 2016, there were 132 reservoirs, but 44 were excluded. Those 44 were then included because they were service reservoirs. They were the box-like potable water structures that NI Water had. It was felt that there was less risk to those because they were designed by consultants or engineers for local authorities at the time and then transferred to NI Water in 1973. Moving forward, further studies were done in 2019 and 2020, which Jonathan alluded to. If a reservoir panel engineer comes to us and provides the necessary assurance that a reservoir has been decommissioned in an appropriate way, we accept that.

Mr K Buchanan: Do you mean decommissioned as in drained?

Mr Quinn: Yes, drained, removing water or increasing a spillway to ensure that the capacity falls beneath 10,000 cubic metres. There are different ways to do that, but, essentially, we need that assurance from a specialist reservoir panel engineer.

Mr K Buchanan: That work could be done on some of those 173 tomorrow. However, it would still cost them to get a special engineer to come and do that assessment. It is only that we are saving them from the additional cost of embankment work, or whatever you want to call it

Mr McKee: Yes, you will have the cost of the engineer, but it is also important, Keith, to go back to my earlier comment: even if the reservoir capacity is reduced to below 10,000 cubic metres and to outside the scope of the Act, the reservoir manager will still be required to make whatever investment is necessary to keep that smaller reservoir safe. Therefore, the works to the embankment may still be needed. That is what I am saying.

Mr K Buchanan: I have a supplementary point, which is more for DFI Rivers. If you have embankments on rivers that flood, are you concerned about flooding property or houses in that instance? I do not mean that in the wrong way. Are you with me? With rivers, you have embankments that can be eroded. I do not mean to be at all cheeky, but it is very difficult at times to get DFI to come and fix those embankments. How does that play out? A homeowner may say to me, "Look at that: it is going to flood my house".

Mr McKee: When we are aware that we need to do remedial works on flood banks or a flood defence, we are absolutely keen to do that.

Mr K Buchanan: Property or land? I take it that property, as in the home, is more important than land.

Mr McKee: Yes. If we have to prioritise, it will be prioritised in terms of risk to life and property. Farmland is a secondary consideration. That is, if we have to prioritise. However, if you have particular locations in mind, by all means, we are happy to deal with them.

Mr K Buchanan: That has cleared up the three points that I was not clear about. Fair enough. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I want to follow up on that point, if you do not mind. We, as a Committee, are asking questions around NI Water. It had set aside money to do remedial works to some of its assets, so we are asking some questions around whether that has been completed, given the financial constraints that it is under.

What remedial works have taken place since 2015 to the reservoirs that DFI owns, and how much did they cost the Department?

Mr McKee: We have undertaken the necessary surveys of all our stock of reservoirs. Work has been completed, and work is planned. Normally, when an engineer produces their report, they identify the matters in the interests of safety, and they also identify a time frame for when it needs to be completed. It might not all need to be done right away.

I do not have the figures with me of how much that work cost, but I am more than happy to provide those to the Committee. However, we have been proactive and diligent in making sure that our stock of reservoirs is up to standard and maintained as it should be.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): You have six. Is that correct?

Mr McKee: Yes, that is correct.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Work has been completed, and work is planned.

Mr McKee: That is correct.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): On how many has work been completed, and on how many is work planned?

Mr McKee: I will need to confirm those figures with you, but there is at least one where work is planned. The work can range from very minor work that I might not be aware of, and it is dealt with appropriately by our operational teams, right up to very significant investment. I am aware of one particular reservoir on the list because it requires major capital investment.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): If you could provide those figures to the Committee, that would be useful. Obviously, there is a financial aspect for the Department.

I can understand that a private owner or not-for-profit organisation that is looking at the Department bringing in the legislation would like to think that, as you said, the Department will look at its own stock and take account of all the safety measures. I just want to ensure that we have all that in place.

When the anglers came to the Committee, site abandonment and the possibility of drainage and the environmental and ecological impact of that came up. Obviously, there was the transfer of functions from DAERA, but what conversations have you had with it since about the environmental and ecological impact of abandonment etc? There is an impact on wildlife through the loss of fishing stock from water surrounding such reservoirs.

Mr McKee: We are fully seized of the importance of it, so we are making all the necessary preparations should the Act commence. Part of that has involved conversations with colleagues in DAERA, because we are aware that some reservoir managers may wish to discontinue or abandon the reservoir. If they were to do that, there may be environmental considerations that they need to consider.

If you were a reservoir manager, you would consult DAERA. We are trying to identify how to make that process easy for reservoir managers, but, in virtually all scenarios where you would look to reduce the capacity of a reservoir or completely abandon it, you would need to seek approval from the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) and DAERA for that work.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK. May I just go back again? Even if there is a threat to life, the Department will not step in, because, as far as I am aware, in the 2015 Act, there is the ability for the Department to recover costs. In a scenario where there is a very clear threat to life —.

Mr McKee: To be clear, there are emergency powers in the Act that would allow the Department to step in and recover costs if we were aware that a reservoir had an ongoing dynamic failure: for example, if there were something not dissimilar to Toddbrook. Where it is clear that there is a clear and present danger, risk to life and something that is obvious and palpable, we would need to step in.
To step in before such a scenario develops and relieve a private reservoir manager of their responsibility to keep their structure safe would mean our diverting resources from other investment that we need to make that also keeps people and property safe. That is why the legislative framework is so vital: it is what allows the regulation of the current responsibilities of reservoir managers. When it comes to the Department stepping in, that is where the threshold would be. If we were aware of a dynamic failure — something similar to Toddbrook — that is when the emergency response would be activated, but, at present, we have no evidence of that. That is not to say that it could not commence, but we need to have that clear understanding of when we step in and when we do not. I am at pains this morning to delineate that so that there is not a view that, if the Act does not commence, for example, the Department will step in.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): As I said at the outset, the Committee completely understands that there is a safety aspect to this. We get that. None of us were here — certainly, I was not here — in 2015, and reservoirs were not on my radar in 2015, so we are trying to understand what the unintended consequences are. The major thing for me — I am being blunt about this — is the fact that this could be approved, but we have no real certainty or assurance that a grant scheme will definitely come thereafter. There will be consultation, a business case and then a ministerial decision to be made, but the financial situation in the Department is tight, and we have little assurance that funding will go to the people to whom it needs to go. My fear is that we are saying yes but, at the same time, can give no assurance to the not-for-profit organisations and the local clubs that they will have support. What assurance can you give on that grant scheme today?

Ms Clydesdale: As I have said previously, the consultation has to go to the Minister, and we are finalising that. We hope to get that to the Minister in the next few weeks.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): That will happen in the next few weeks, and then the Minister has to make a decision, but, ultimately, thereafter, it will be very difficult. This is the situation that the Committee finds itself in: this could be approved, but we have no assurance other than the consultation and a ministerial decision.

We appreciate your time today. As I said, the Committee awaits some further detail from the likes of NI Water and so on. If you could come back to the Committee with the figures on DFI's reservoirs, the finance around that and the planned and completed works, that would be useful.

Mr McKee: We are happy to do that, Chair. I am also aware that the Department has received a request for information on methodologies, maps and the sharing of reports. I recognise that you understand the risk, and we are trying to be helpful and explain a complex subject with many nuances, so, if you feel that a closed session would be helpful to share some of that information, given the sensitivity related to the national protocol, we would be happy to convene that session. The previous Committee benefited from such a session, and it might be a good way to share knowledge and explain the risk and the various nuances.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK. Thank you for that offer. The Committee will discuss that, and, if we are in agreement, we will come back to you, if that is OK.

We appreciate your time today. Thank you for coming and giving more evidence on this. It is helpful. Thank you.