Can I build my own deck in the Liffey

Isn't a pontoon functionally indistinguishable from a moored boat? You could put a rudder on it just to make sure 😀

Do you have the right to moor a boat?

edit: not all boats have rudders. For instance, a coracle.

It would be classed as a development and requires pp.

WI's remit only covers navigation on certain rivers that have navigation infrastructure IE. the Shannon and some of it's tributaries, the Barrow etc.

If it was me, I'd be going hydro electrical. 😎😎😎

Please explain why you say the state 'owns the water'. There was some discussion about water and declaring it all in public ownership etc back in the water protests. But that's all it was afaik.

I doubt very much if the state or the ESB owns the water in the Liffey or anywhere. The ESB though likely has a legal right through legislation to use it for generation of electricity. Dating from the 1930s when the Poulaphuca scheme was developed. Just like others would have riparian rights for fishing and so on on the same water.

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking me to explain.

When you say public ownership, I presume you don't mean that in the same sense as a public company. In which case, that is state ownership. What do you think I mean by state owned? Sorry, I'm not following where the disagreement is.

Thank God that Google is always right and knows where the OP lives!

Maybe you should have spent more than 2 seconds and read the first line 😉. It literally the says Council owns the River Liffey within its local authority. That has nothing to do with the OP. Leixlip is in Kildare.

That would impact the presumed rights of adjacent land owners from Island bridge to the sea.

Did you read the article?

The reasons that the DCC is the legal owner of a short section of the Liffey is specific to that section.

The next council can't just claim it - the next council, isn't in Kildare either FWIW.

I mean exactly that. I'm note sure which part you do not understand. You haven't really clarified my questions above. I want to help explain, but I'm a little lost at what you are suggesting the alternative is.

The ownership of land or a waterway separately from the water that is in it goes back a long way in common law. You are granted a right to use water from your property. But only while in your possession. I mean, obviously you can't claim your right remains when it's gone on it's merry way.

Not sure what rainfall has do with anything. The water protests where is relation to the privatisation of Water services, that's a very separated issue. The discussion could get very off topic tbh.

I know people say in this scenario you own the river bed to the half way point and I'm not sure if that's true or not.

Think we can categorically agree this isn't true anyway.

Honestly, whether it's Waterways Ireland or the county council, you will never get permission. Your best hope is build it and hope no-one notices or objects, otherwise forget it.

That says they have the power to enforce the Fisheries Act and Water Pollution Acts, I didn't suggest otherwise btw. It says nothing about them being a planning or development authority. There are a set planning authorities. The decision on development lies with them. An authority might request the opinion of Inland Fisheries to make their decision. Or Inland Fisheries can object to an application, but that's not the same as preventing or rejecting.

As an example, see the case below. A school in Cork, Inland Fisheries object as it may cause pollution. Council granted. IFI appealed, ABP agreed with the grant. Their objection to the school being built did not prevent the school being built. But if the school does cause population, they could still presumably enforce the pollution act and prosecute the school.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30986267.html

Building without pp is really not a good idea and it's surprising to see it recommended on this forum.

Constructing a floating jetty is an expensive job.

It needs to be engineered and fabricated off site.

Heavy machinery would have to come in over the garden and all the work would need to be carried out on the land side because I'd expect no work boats or pontoons could access the river at that location.

Having had all that outlay you run the risk of having to do it all again to remove the jetty if it is reported and you have to apply for pp which is refused.

that's taken from the statute book that ifi are set up under and your example of a school impacting the quality of water due to capacity issues at sewage plant is not the same as building out into the river bed 59.— (1) Subject to this section, for the purpose of improving any fishery (whether or not the fishery is the property of IFI) IFI may do all or any of the following, namely—

(a) take fish from a fishery by any means whatsoever,

(b) implement any other measure intended to alter or regulate the stock in a fishery of fish of one or more particular species,

(c) keep under surveillance and from time to time ascertain by any means the quality of water in a fishery,

(d) alter, repair, remove or demolish any fence, hedge, tree or wall,

(e) dig, break or otherwise temporarily close, cross, extend, divert or otherwise interfere with or alter any navigable waterway, river, stream or other watercourse, bridge, tunnel, culvert, pipe, drain or other thing, and

(f) notwithstanding section 327 of the Principal Act, take materials from any river, stream or other watercourse,

I know that DCC owns some infrastructure outside it's own current borders, inherited from what would have been Dublin County Council.

It's possible that DCC owns river property outside of the DCC area.

You stated above "The state owns the water not the ESB"

It's not really important of course but your certainty raised my eyebrows.. so either the state owns the water or it doesn't?

Because the ESB doesn’t own it. You’re just going it circles and haven’t answered any questions. It’s not important, I agree. I’m just curious what your thinking is.

Who do you think owns it?