Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government debate -
Wednesday, 15 Feb 2017

Water Supply Project for Eastern and Midlands Region: Irish Water

We are now in public session. I welcome Mr. Jerry Grant, Mr. Michael O'Sullivan and Ms Claire Coleman. Today's meeting will involve a presentation from Irish Water on the water supply project for the eastern and midlands region.

Before we begin, I draw witnesses' attention to the fact that, by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. The opening statements submitted to the committee will be published on the committee's website after the meeting.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I welcome our witnesses here this morning and I invite Mr. Grant to make his opening presentation.

Mr. Jerry Grant

Thank you. I will try to give a fairly brief overview of what is a very substantial, strategic and long-term project for Irish Water and the country. This project has a long provenance; it was first identified as a long-term requirement in 1996 when the strategic requirements for the eastern region, and particularly the greater Dublin area, were looked at. It is useful to reflect on the history of water supplies in the region. The Vartry scheme was first built in 1870 following an Act of the British Parliament. In its time is absolutely transformed public health in this city. I think that the average life expectancy at the time was about 46 years and death from cholera and dysentery, especially child mortality, was huge. That scheme was extraordinarily transformative in its time. In the 1940s the ESB built the Poolaphouca impoundment; at the time it was built not only for hydroelectric but with provision for further water supplies for Dublin. It provided the basis for development of the region for the period since then. Today the big water treatment plants at Ballymore Eustace and Leixlip abstract 40% of the total flow in the River Liffey for the greater Dublin area, which is quite an extraordinary level of abstraction, and frankly at the limit of what is sustainable. Currently, Vartry needs €150 million to bring it up to modern standards, both in terms of treatment and integrity. A huge amount of money is being invested in the Dublin system and in the eastern region system, but the reality is that within ten years there will be a shortage and that shortage has to be met with a big decision to provide a new major water supply for the region.

On the approach that is being taken, in the short term for the next ten years, there is about 8% headroom in the Liffey schemes which is very tight in the context of a growing region with a strong economic growth again. We will need to save substantial water from leakage which will take a massive effort given the types of pipework that we have and the age of much of it - there is about 2,000 km of old cast iron and a lot of very poor more modern pipe, especially cement and PVC. There will be a huge effort by Irish Water in recovering leakage year on year over the next ten years to ensure that we do not have a problem until we can develop a new major source. For the long term, after years of investigation and four rounds of non-statutory public consultation, we have arrived at the view that a scheme based on the River Shannon, abstracting from Parteen basin, is the most sustainable long-term solution and will provide for the needs of the eastern and midland regions of the country long into the future.

A new supply clearly gives us the capacity to have sustainable water capacity in the entire region which caters for 40% of the national population. That overall supply will then be resilient for things such as climate effects, changes in summer rainfall and so on, all of which are significant risks at the moment if we did nothing. Obviously there is significant social and economic growth potential in the region, that includes both FDI and indigenous industry, all of which need a certainty of sustainable supplies. Critically, it would give the region the kind of headroom or security against things going wrong such as the failure of a plant, the failure of a pipeline, pollution of a source or that the supply does not come down and cause a major difficulty. On the consequences of failure, the economic assessments which we had carried out as part of the project indicated that a day of a shut-down in water supply to the Dublin region would cost a minimum of €78 million in economic loss, but obviously reputational damage would impact on our ability to attract industry, for example, and indeed the confidence of the country would be severely shaken, so it is critically important that we ensure long-term supplies.

We have provided members with figures for population projections using median CSO predictions but extending them out to 2050. Obviously, in a project like this, one looks well beyond the normal demographic projections because this is a project that will be multi-generational and therefore one has to look as far as one can into the future. In that context we have projected an increase in the greater Dublin area of about 640,000 people and a further 160,000 people in the benefiting corridor across the midlands, which gives an idea of the kind of population requirement. Obviously, that is matched by the potential commercial non-domestic demand and we have also factored in, in discussions with the IDA and others, a reasonable provision for strategic capacity and we recognise how critical that can be when it comes to multinational industries trying to decide between countries where water can be a determining factor.

There is a multiplicity of small schemes dotted around the region and over the next 20 years we will be looking to eliminate a great deal of those because many of them are unsustainable and many of them are poor quantity sources or indeed sources that are vulnerable to pollution where it is very difficult for us to ensure the quality. In time, we see the larger schemes gradually eliminating many of the smaller schemes as we aggregate them to bigger schemes and we can provide the kind of level of treatment that is considered appropriate nowadays.

On the solution, after looking at many options, I think there were ten significant options looked at in the beginning. These were gradually narrowed down and eventually it came down to a choice between the River Shannon and desalination. Ultimately, that decision came down, to a large extent, to both the benefits of the Shannon scheme, as an option, and the running cost. The long-term economic cost of desalination is enormous by comparison. The decision to transfer water from the Shannon basin to the eastern region had to be on the basis that the benefit to one community could not be at the expense of another, it could not be at the expense of the Shannon communities. To prove that, we examined various options on the Shannon from Loughrea down to northern Lough Derg and ultimately ended up in Parteen basin on the basis of the storage and control which the ESB can exercise at that point. It is possible to take water without any impact on either levels, in Lough Derg, because they are controlled within the normal operating regime that the ESB use, or indeed any loss of amenity benefit or ecological benefit because the water has already passed through the entire Shannon system. That means there was the development of a pipeline corridor from there to Peamount and the western side of Dublin where they would integrate to the Dublin network. That pipeline evolved over a long period, again looking at options, marking out all of the things that needed to be considered, barriers such as the communities where people were living, woodland, conservation areas, mountains and so on. This ultimately came down to a number of corridors and was gradually tightened down to a 1 km corridor and then to 200 m.

Members have been given an aerial view of the Ardnacrusha dam. It shows the old river and dam which controls 10 m3/s which continually goes down the old river. The balance of the flow which averages 170 m3/s goes down through Ardnacrusha and is used for generation. The proposition is that to achieve full development of the scheme in 2050 would take up to 4 m3/s which reduces the amount of water going down through Ardnacrusha to 166 cubic meters and the 4 cubic meters would be diverted to water supply, so it is a very small proportion of the water that is currently used for power generation.

On the pipeline, Mr. O'Sullivan can speak in more detail later about the discussions with individual landowners and the process by which we are engaging with the landowning community. We had a broad corridor within which we are now settling on a 50 m wayleave; that is the construction width. There is still tweaking going on with that in consultation with individual landowners. That process will continue for another six weeks or so, and then, during the following months, we will have very detailed engagements around activities on farms and the impacts on the work with a view to coming up with proposals that we can address and compensation in each individual case. We have had people on the ground for about 12 months, looking at the issues, agricultural and so on. The starting position is to find the least impactive route and then to work on the impacts of that on people and communities.

The slide shows an English pipeline, which is the only long distance pipeline of this scale. It demonstrates, broadly speaking, the kind of impact during construction which is significant. It is a 50 m width. The construction period at any particular section could be for 12 months but there is a significant recovery period as well while the land returns to full production. The slide on our PowerPoint presentation shows land with a Bord Gáis pipeline after it has been restored and has gone back to full productivity. We are following the practice that Bord Gáis developed well. It came up with comprehensive codes of practice for the way the work should be done, particularly how it impacts on farms of different kinds of farming activity, drainage, groundwater management, final reinstatement and the quality of same.

Ms Claire Coleman can give the committee more detail on the pre-consultation processes. This is the third round of intensive public non-statutory consultation as part of the process of eliciting the issues which need to be considered. We have come to the end of that process. Each time all of the submissions have been considered, we have responded to all of them. They certainly played a significant part in the evolution of this project. We hope to go for planning application to An Bord Pleanála at the back end of this year. In that subsequent process, there will be a statutory public consultation process to which everybody will have access, and ultimately, to what will be a substantial oral hearing. Assuming all that goes well and we have an approved scheme sometime in 2019, we hope to continue to develop the scheme with a view to construction between 2021 and 2024.

There is without question a significant deficit facing the region in the medium term unless we make provision for significant additional water resources. It is a challenge previous generations had to face in the 1860s and the 1940s. Due to the far-seeing projects put in place at those times, we have had the benefit of significant development, as well as social and economic progress. We are now at a stage where we need another scheme on that scale to secure the future of the eastern and midlands region. We are in the process of preparing a national water resources plan for the entire country. This will be published in draft for public consultation at the back end of this year. This particular area had much work done already and the scheme is being brought ahead. We will be looking at long-term secure water supply provision and how it will fit in with the water framework directive and river basin management across the country.

I thank Mr. Grant for his presentation. I call Senator Grace O'Sullivan.

I thank Mr. Grant for his presentation.

With regard to recent information he gave to the Joint Committee on the Future Funding of Domestic Water Services, Mr. Grant said he was forced to rethink the water usage calculation after it became evident individual usage is 110 litres per person per day. This is significantly less than what Irish water had originally calculated. What would be the impact of this usage deficit on this proposed Shannon scheme?

Mr. Grant also said this week that 765 million litres of water is lost a day through leakage, 45% of overall water production, and that Irish Water is making quite a headway in reducing this. I assume that will happen in the future. Has this been factored into the calculations for water needs in the greater Dublin area?

In addition, we have spoken about water-saving devices, and technology in this regard has moved on through good developments. Could something be done in this area to reduce the need to create this massive development? I have many concerns about this proposed scheme and we are hearing from communities around the country with regard to it.

Has any scoping exercise been done on the environmental impacts of such a large construction project? Has the impact of climate change with regard to greenhouse gases and our obligations over the course of the development of this project been taken into account?

The Kennedy report refutes much of the information that Mr. Grant gave the committee today. What are his views on this report and the concerns it has raised?

Has Irish Water considered the canals as a way of bringing water from the Shannon to Dublin? It would not impact as much on the landowners along the way? Has this been considered?

I thank Mr. Grant for his presentation.

This is probably one of the largest infrastructure projects in the history of the State. It is probably in the top three in terms of its size and its cost. It is important this committee scrutinises it in as much detail as possible. I hope this is the first of a number of engagements in this regard.

There has been much debate around the accuracy of the projections of the future water needs of the Dublin water supply region, not only the city but the larger region. I note that two of the early assessment reports in 2006 and 2010 had projections for 2015. When we got to 2015, however, they were in fact greatly inflated because water usage in the city had plateaued by then.

I have read with great interest the back-and-forth between Irish Water and the Kennedy report authors contesting their figures. I am not convinced the issues the authors of the Kennedy report raised have been fully answered. I am particularly interested in Mr. Grant's responses to the concerns they have raised around the overestimation of the projected need of Dublin's water needs in the future.

Related to that, the population projections from Irish Water are based on the population and economic development of Dublin and the surrounding region on an as-is basis, namely, all other things remaining as they currently are. We are in the middle, however, of the development of the national planning framework. One of the issues the framework is trying to address is to come up with a Government policy which can start to reverse that trend away from the overconcentration in Dublin and its region to a more balanced regional development. It seems to be premature for this project to fix on its population projections and move to an An Bord Pleanála application before the national planning framework is completed. What is in that document when it is finalised could have significant consequences for Irish Water's planning application and population projection figures. Would it not be more prudent, given that the framework will be ready in September, to wait for the outcome of that before Irish Water proceeds?

There is the same point with the river basin management plan. This is meant to be ready by the end of the year. Much good new work and research has been done by the Environmental Protection Agency's catchment management unit, which is directly relevant to the environmental impact of this project, as well as the contentious issue of groundwater and whether it could provide some additional capacity for Dublin. The last report on groundwater in Dublin in 2008 was quite controversial. It did not do much primary research itself into the availability of groundwater resources. That information will be available when we have the river basin management plan and the EPA catchment management unit's survey. Again, would it not be more prudent, given that this will be ready at the end of the year, to wait to factor it into this plan?

It is same again with the abstraction regulations required under the water framework directive. I understand there is a working group in the Department looking at the extraction regulations. This is a crucial part of the compliance with the relevant directive. What level of engagement has Irish Water had with this working group? Obviously, that is relevant to any extraction from Parteen weir.

I refer to the national water resources plan. Part of the pitch in the presentation is the inclusion of this benefiting corridor, yet there is no plan in terms of the future water infrastructure in that area. Would it not have been better to have that plan in place before a case is made regarding the benefiting corridor?

On leakage and water conservation, if the plan is agreed by An Bord Pleanála, is constructed and water starts pumping into Dublin, on the basis of Irish Water's figures 40% will be lost straight away. I understand reducing the current 40% water loss to 20% takes a lot of time and money, but would it not make more sense to accelerate that process to the greatest possible extent so that if a pipeline project like this goes ahead, less than 40% of the water that is being pumped across the country is lost?

I know water conservation is not primarily the responsibility of Irish Water, rather of other Government agencies. To what extent has there been a cross-departmental or inter-agency approach to try to have greater use of the water in Dublin in parallel to this project?

The only strategic environment assessment for this project was done in 2008, when the project was on a smaller scale. I would like to know why a strategic environmental assessment is not being carried out for the larger project. I also have a concern about the environmental impact assessment, or the lack thereof, for the benefiting corridor. Can the delegation talk us through that?

I refer to Dublin Bay. We know that the European Commission currently has enforcement proceedings against the State for failure to comply with the urban wastewater directive. One of the areas of concern is Dublin Bay, where a significant amount of wastewater is being pumped into the bay. In the discussions with the Commission and Irish Water or the Department on compliance with the urban wastewater directive, is the Commission fully aware of the increased volumes of wastewater that could be dispersed into Dublin Bay as a result of the increased level of water coming into the city and the region through this project?

In terms of tackling that issue, a chemical, orthophosphate, would be used in the Ringsend water treatment plant. That has significant environmental impacts in terms of algae and large plants in the Dublin Bay region. What environmental impact assessments of the consequences of that for a greater level of water going into Dublin Bay have been undertaken?

This is clearly an Irish Water project, but it is really a State project that affects not just Irish Water but the relevant local authorities, the Departments of Communications, Climate Action and Environment and Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government and the Environmental Protection Agency. There have been high-level contacts in terms of directives. I am interested in knowing the level of technical day-to-day or week-to-week engagement between the different agencies up until this point. If this project goes ahead, what kind of management and inter-agency co-ordination would take place as the project is being implemented and once it is up and running into the future?

I want to focus on the public consultation process. I will refer to the current Vartry project. It is to be hoped lessons have been learned from that project in regard to public consultation. In that case, we did not bring the public with us. The public were not informed of the project and the impact it would have on the Vartry river. The initial application did not contain an environmental impact statement which raised concerns. A rearguard action was being fought from then on in terms of additional information and trying to acknowledge the views of the public. The decision has now been appealed to the board. It is regrettable that an agent of the State has appealed the decision to the board. Irish Water did not bring along some of the State bodies in the consultation process.

Before we embark on an even bigger project than Vartry, has the delegation made ample provision for public consultation with landowners and those who will be affected by the project? Deputy Ó Broin mentioned the environmental impact statement.

Is Irish Water interacting with State bodies? It is very disappointing to see a State body appealing the decision of Wicklow County Council regarding the Vartry reservoir. Proper consultation was not carried out with Inland Fisheries on the project. Its views were not taken into consideration and solutions were not proposed to deal with them, and it appealed the decision.

I thank Irish Water for the presentation. Many of our questions have been alluded to by previous speakers.

In recent weeks and months, many people have come to this debate who had not engaged with the issue previously, many of whom live in the vicinity of the area which the pipeline transverses. Needs must on their part. Irish Water briefly outlined the process, which involved four different stages of consultation during the discussions around the various routes that had been proposed until it arrived at the preferred route option.

As Deputy Ó Broin acknowledged and referred to, much of the guiding factors, background and relevant scientific information that led Irish Water to arrive at the preferred route was based on information and reports that date back to 2006 and so forth. From some of the engagement I have had with landowners and communities who believe they will be impacted, perhaps in a negative way, it is a case of the consultation needing to be such that people are properly engaged, informed and allowed to make a more informed decision than is currently the case.

It would be no harm if, for example, Irish Water could produce a document that gave a brief synopsis of the process to date, including where it was initiated, its current status, how it arrived at its current status and where it can go.

Deputy Ó Broin also referred to the infamous Kennedy report. I am led to believe that Irish Water is meeting the authors or their representatives in the coming weeks. It would be no harm to produce a document highlighting Irish Water's response to what is contained in the report in order for people to easily ascertain the issues that are being communicated to them, how Irish Water has responded to them, how it will respond and how their fears can be allayed.

I wish to elaborate on some of the points made by Irish Water. We acknowledge the significance of the project and the benefits that will accrue to Dublin and the greater midlands area. Irish Water has gone through a process and will go through another to devise a national water framework to ensure the resource is available to all regions and to allow all regions to realise that potential and not be hamstrung by deficiencies regarding the provision of water services. We need to be sure at this juncture that sufficient resources are available to other regions so that they can, where necessary, be able to attract investment from an industrial and residential perspective in terms of their potential.

Costs have been disputed at various meetings I have attended. I have heard a figure of €1.2 billion mentioned. In previous discussions I had with Irish Water figure of €850 million and €950 million were mentioned. Have the costs remained consistent with the original projections?

I hope that in the other documentation Irish Water produces it will identify routes that were explored and the reasons they did not meet with approval following the processes and procedures involved. People have mentioned canals and railway lines to me.

In my constituency, Bord na Móna had a fine proposal to have a storage facility at Cloneyhurke which had the potential to attract investment to the area in terms of watersports, activities and so forth, which I would have welcomed, enjoyed and been in a position to expand and explore. That community needs to be re-appraised in terms of the conclusions that were arrived at and why the State's capital investment is for the betterment of the entire region rather than any individual area.

If the documentation about the entire process is easily accessed and understood, it will help. What stage is Irish Water at in respect of consultation with landowners? Has expertise been engaged? Is independent expertise available to landowners to enable them to make an informed decision before they eventually sign agreements? There is much fear and trepidation on the part of some at public meetings I have attended regarding backfill and reinstatement of the land. Any dichotomy on the land of dairy farmers would have a greater effect than on other types of farming activity. Have Irish Water officials examined the different farm holdings and activities on the land and scaled them into priorities thereafter?

There will be greater emphasis when it comes to the planning application on environmental impact issues. Studies will have to be carried out and will have to be available during the planning process for people to scrutinise, comment on and object to or support. Each local authority along the route will have an opportunity, as is the norm, to make a submission to An Bord Pleanála based on consultation with the elected representatives, management and the expertise available to them. Each of them has a development plan, which may be impacted, and that will need to be highlighted. Councillors also need to be fully informed and briefed in order that they can play the role expected of them by their constituents in so far as they can protect their development plans or amend them accordingly if there is a benefit to doing so.

A number of mobile phones are interfering with the sound system. Will members ensure they are switched off or set to airplane mode?

What happened to the Garryhinch proposal? If it is not included, it would be a huge disaster for the project. I was involved in a previous life as a Minister of State is setting up this wonderful body called Irish Water, for which I have suffered greatly. Apart from losing my job for telling the truth, which is something that should not happen to a good politician like me, the biggest issue in setting up the organisation, which was completely ignored and which I repeated ad nauseam, at high and low level meetings, was public engagement. This is being raised again in this context. The key to this project is to sell it to the people on economic grounds, the benefit to the local community in terms of jobs, and the augmentation of the water supply for the towns between the source and Dublin.

Nationally, we do not have enough water and Dublin will not be able to deal with a significant disruption of supply or increase in demand after 2022. This is one of the most important projects in the history of the State. I acknowledge the comments of local Deputies. Every farmer, GAA club, community and individual must be aware of, and buy into, the project. There are economic issues in the context of farmers being disadvantaged with disruption to their everyday activity and land not being reinstated in a proper and acceptable condition. However, the key to this project is the social and economic benefit to communities on the route beginning with the location of the source of the water. It must be ensured there is an immediate, significant community benefit by increasing community services, and resources for schools and local health centres. Irish Water needs a plan to sell this to the people because it is so important to get it right and to get them to buy into it. That is what I wanted when Irish Water was being established in order that people understood what the benefits would be at the end of the day, but this was absent.

The key element of this project was put forward by Dublin City Council, which was the Bord na Móna proposal regarding Garryhinch. This would be a strategic reservoir which could supply the city of Dublin for a minimum period of six months uninterrupted. If all other supplies shut down, Garryhinch could supply water for a significant period. If there is a significant interruption to the Dublin water supply, how will Irish Water deal with it if Garryhinch is not included? I visited the site, which covers a huge area. The issue was properly lining the site to ensure no issue with THMs in order that the water was safe. It would be a magnificent reservoir should anything happen in the future. We do not know what will happen to the country in the future but Garryhinch would guarantee supply to Dublin, Wicklow, Kildare, Louth and so on. All these counties would benefit from the security of supply and inward investment. The high-tech jobs in Leixlip would be guaranteed forever and it would create the capacity to create more jobs.

I visited Anglian Water in England, which has reservoirs similar to the proposed reservoir at Garryhinch, although I acknowledge there is different geology and so on. A total of 1 million people have visited the reservoirs in England. The Chairman should visit them because they are strategic to the water supply for the area. The tourism spin off is magnificent, including hotels and so on. I spoke to other Deputies, including Deputy Marcella Corcoran Kennedy, about how important such a project would be because it would transform the local economy in terms of tourism and employment. A bog could become the largest lake in Europe for recreational fishing. It would have huge advantages.

I hope everyone will forgive my enthusiasm for the project and my cynicism about the way I was treated, which is a matter for other fora. I am committed to this project but if Garryhinch is not included, I would like a clear explanation. If not, can it be reconsidered? It would provide long-term security. I do not know where the abstraction for the water supply is now because it may have changed and I am not involved anymore. The key is local people must buy into this. They must want it and they must shout for it because the benefit to them will be so big in terms of employment and community. If the project is sold properly, they will want it because it will be hugely beneficial to them.

I echo the Deputy's enthusiasm and agree with his remarks. This project is about consultation and how it is sold to people in the context of the greater good for the area and what it can do.

The presentation was comprehensive. I represent the constituency where the abstraction is due to take place. There is considerable unease among the public regarding the pipeline. I will not repeat the points raised by colleagues but consultation to bring the public onside and to outline what the end product will be and what impact it will have on communities is essential. Smaller projects in other parts of the country have caused significant disturbance. People along this route have the experience of the recently built motorway.

Many farmers suffered greatly because of the motorway and now, when they see another major infrastructural project happening, they are asking why they are being affected again. The motorway impacted on the profession of dairy farmers along the route for three to five years and it caused serious disruption, and now they are facing the same scenario again. These individual landowners are hugely resentful. Another major issue is where landowners are unfortunate enough to suffer sterilisation of sites which would have been suitable for family members to build on. Some landowners have limited road frontage and they may lose it because of the route of the pipeline. They would like to see family members building houses near the family home. Points are made about the impact the project may have on underground water sources. Will the project impact on activities?

Many local issues arise and, as has been said by previous speakers, they all need to be addressed and serious consultation is required. At present, there is significant resistance to the project at local level. Education and consultation could sort out many of the issues. Why were other options overruled? Why was this option picked? There must be education to show this is the best and cheapest option which will benefit the infrastructure. Reference has been made to the Kennedy report. Objectors point to the committee report, which states that better and cheaper options are available. We are a long way from having the public on side in my constituency and getting the public on side is paramount to the success of the project.

Mr. Jerry Grant

Many very good questions have been asked and they cover what is at the heart of a project being successful in the planning process. This is a massive project. As Deputy Ó Broin stated, it is the third biggest project in the history of the State. By virtue of this, we cannot rush it and we must be very sensitive to the fact we are looking for a broad societal benefit which could be at the expense of communities. We must evaluate this very carefully, and this is the point of the environmental impact process, the planning process and the consultation process. I am hugely aware of this. I am also acutely aware of the impact on individual farms and farm families, because a large trench is dug for a year or two and there is a recovery period. All this must be factored in.

With regard to consultation and when reports were published, this has been under discussion for 20 years, and seriously so for the past 12 or 14 years. At one stage, economic growth was such that it looked like we would need it sooner in Dublin and we were asked to have it for 2021. I am very glad we do not need to have it for 2021 because we would not be able to get it for then. We cannot rush a project like this. Other plans, and the development of national plans, must be considered because a project such as this transcends a number of plans. Between starting and finishing, along the way it will have to be able to adapt to spatial planning, river basin planning and many other issues. We certainly have tried to do this.

Senator Grace O'Sullivan asked about per capita demand and it is exactly as she said. With metering information and knowledge on per capita usage and household usage we were able to revisit the per capita figures. Quite frankly, this has bought us at least three years in terms of having to bring forward the project because between leakage savings and the reality of the demand figures, we will have until the mid-2020s before we reach a point when, in my view, the risk becomes critical for the country. Previously, it looked like it would be earlier than this.

When we look at the leakage question, the reality is that nationally approximately 765 million litres are lost in leakage. In the greater Dublin area the figure is probably approximately 300 million litres. Addressing this is a massive project. People speak about leakage being recoverable but we never beat leakage. All we can do is address and attack it. We must replace 2,000 km of old cast iron pipes in the city. If we were to do this over ten years we would paralyse the city. It would be like having the Luas works continuously for ten years, and this would only replace cast iron pipes and would not deal with the leaks in the service connections or the PVC pipes. We have a lot of very poor pipes and over the past 40 years connections have been rusting. We will address leakage. We have committed to taking out approximately 70 million litres of leakage between now and 2021 and we will need to do so to meet the needs of the region.

It comes down to the question of risk. I will return to a question from Deputy Ó Broin on planning and where it happens. Our job is to ensure there is enough water in every region to support the planning objectives of each region. It is not to dictate planning. If we do not have enough water in Dublin it would have an impact for sure, but this is not the way in which anyone, politician or engineer, would want to plan the country. Therefore, our job is to ensure that in the furtherance of supporting proper spatial planning water is available as required. There must be an element of speculative provision. Foreign direct investment and the development of our indigenous agrifood industry are crucially dependent on drinking water. There are many parts of the world where water on this scale would not be able to be mobilised in the public good and the common good. There are factors with regard to risk.

The report from Emma Kennedy and other reports have been referenced. We have published responses and will publish fully comprehensive responses to all the points raised because they are very important. They seek to examine getting the maximum out of the Liffey to combine with maximum demand on any given day. If we do this we will fail. It is absolutely guaranteed to fail. Even as late as last December, because we had a very dry autumn period, we were close to having to look at having to conserve water because of where the Poulaphouca reservoir was at. The Vartry was also very low last autumn. It is absolutely critical that we are realistic about the water in the Liffey. As we bring forward projects such as the river basin plans under the water framework directive, the likelihood is there is a real risk we will be asked to reduce the abstraction from the Liffey, particularly if climate change has the effect predicted. If this were to happen we would be in real trouble.

One of the considerations any first world country has in a city region is multiple supplies. It is very risky to have all our eggs in one basket, and the fact we take 40% of all the water in the Liffey for the greater Dublin area is a huge risk. Taking all these issues into account, it would be very imprudent in my opinion not to plan and deliver this project within a reasonable timeframe, but this must take regard of all the considerations discussed.

With regard to greenhouse gases and energy, transferring water from the Shannon to Dublin involves a significant energy component, but it is much less than desalination. This particular pipeline has been optimised in a way I did not think was possible. The water is being pumped to Cloughjordan on the Tipperary and Offaly border and it can flow by gravity from there to Dublin, with offtakes for the various communities along the way. It is very efficient from an energy perspective, compared with the other pipeline options we examined.

I was very attracted to the Garryhinch option, and I thought it was real runner on the basis that water could be taken from north Lough Derg and we could stop taking it out during low summer flow periods, but difficulties arose when we did a detailed investigation. We would need much more storage in Garryhinch than we thought because the ecological modelling of Lough Derg, which has a very sensitive ecosystem, suggested to us we could not be sure there would not be an impact if we did not have four, five or even six months storage. The detailed geotechnical investigations showed the cost of the Garryhinch reservoir would be much higher. In the end, Parteen basin, which is at the Ardnacrusha dam, was a much more secure option from an environmental point of view. Effectively, water would be taken at the back of the dam, so it would have come right through the lake and the lake and its ecosystem would have benefited from the water and there would be minimal risk of environmental impact. A huge number of environmental studies are still being done.

To answer Deputy Ó Broin's question, a strategic environmental assessment was conducted on this project specifically. We also conducted a strategic environmental assessment on the 25-year water services strategic plan, which specifically references this project.

All of our plans and programmes have strategic environmental assessments, SEAs and all of them, in so far as we can, are integrated. I would love if we could have an overall national water resources plan within the timeframe to cover everything but, frankly, that is in itself a massive piece of work. I am very cognisant of where there is adequate water. Places like Limerick, Galway and Cork are well supplied but in other parts of the country such as the north east, Deputy O'Dowd's territory, we need to upgrade the treatment plants. They are okay for the moment but the Boyne is a very limited river because it has been drained. Therefore, there is a need on this side of the country to have a strategic capacity in order that one can respond to changes over time in terms of development.

A question was asked about the loads on Dublin Bay. Our job is to provide the drinking water and to provide the wastewater treatment to the required standard. The urban wastewater treatment directive requires us to remove phosphorus and nitrogen from Ringsend and we have a project to do that. We are increasing the capacity of Ringsend from 1.65 million to 2.4 million population equivalent. The use of orthophosphate is a different thing, which is to deal with lead in drinking water. That has to be factored into how much phosphorus we take out so that we do not have an adverse impact on Dublin Bay.

In terms of the river basin planning process, we are very much in touch with that and we are very much part of the process of consultation and engagement in how those plans are being developed. What we do on the wastewater side and what we do on the abstraction side is very much part of that. We have been in discussions with the Department around the evolving implementation of abstraction regulation. At the moment, we have to work within the context of existing legislation, which is the 1964 Act, with the ESB and if there are any changes to that we will take them on board as we proceed to planning.

I will ask Ms Coleman to respond to the question about the environmental impact statement and how it is being scoped. In terms of the overall governance of the project, this project has been through four rounds of non-statutory public consultation, which has had very intensive engagement with communities, individuals, and all manner of interested groups but also directly with local authorities. We have been in the chambers in Tipperary and Offaly. We have been talking with the chief executives of those counties and directors of services. We have been very open. Deputy Cowen made a good point, namely, that when one is talking about broad options people who are impacted locally do not engage, so no matter how many rounds of consultation one has, until one comes down to a specific route and a specific pipe one does not know the people who are going to be directly affected. I can fully understand that we now need to go back to those people and show them what has been done in terms of the broader options. I will not go into the issues here as there is a massive amount of work involved. Deputy Cowen asked that we might look at the process we have been through and document it. It would be very valuable to remind people of all the steps and to be able to reference back to the various studies, among other things.

I accept Deputy Casey's point about the Vartry river. We probably underestimated what we were doing there. We were going in to put a treatment plant in an existing plant and we did not see ourselves impacting on the Vartry flow and we still do not intend to impact on it. The leakage from the old filters was travailing it and I think it is possible to compensate for that and still have a workable water supply. Perhaps we did drop the ball. If we did, we are talking to Inland Fisheries Ireland, IFI, and to various others. There is of course a competition for how much water we can trade with the Vartry river because anything we give to the Vartry river we lose for Dublin, and more particularly for Wicklow now, because very little of that water reaches Dublin anymore. I accept the point that we have an obligation to engage and consult with State bodies and local authorities and to try to cover as much as we possibly can.

In response to Deputy Cowen, I will ask Mr. O'Sullivan to speak about the approach to individual landowners and how that process is being conducted. The environmental impact statement, EIS, process is really only happening this year. Ms Coleman can talk about the scoping of it, but that is a very big piece of work which has to look at every issue. Someone mentioned groundwater effects, such as how it affects local wells, and how it might affect aquifers. Groundwater is frequently referenced as a potential source of water but the experience in this part of the country in particular and, generally in Ireland, is very poor apart from small volume capacities. Any attempt to abstract from the Kildare aquifers would be met by immediate local opposition on environmental grounds. People might remember the Pollardstown Fen in respect of the motorway project where a massive amount had to be spent to try to protect against any drop in water level. Scientifically, one is just not going to get any appreciable amount. Certainly groundwater is very useful and probably needed for local needs anyway. I refer to agricultural needs in this part of the country and horticulture for example. There was thought to be a lot of water on the Fingal-Meath border and a lot of investigation went into it but very few sustainable yields were proven. One will get locally useful supplies but one will not solve the problem of the Dublin area in that regard.

The onus on us now is to engage openly and as much as we possibly can with communities and individuals who are directly affected by the proposal, which is now the preferred option on the table. We are only in the early stages of that and I give an assurance that we will make ourselves available and talk not just to individual farmers and communities but also representative bodies until we are satisfied that we have convinced people to the maximum extent possible. The prize is enormous as well and the risk of not developing the scheme is that we will run into shortages of water, whether that happens in 2024, 2025 or 2026, and we will get to the point where it will not be possible to cater for development in this region. In terms of the midland region, the Mullingar scheme is dependent on Lough Owel, which we share with Waterways Ireland. At the moment we are not able to meet the requirements of Waterways Ireland and Irish Water and we need to get additional supplies for the Mullingar scheme. I invite Mr. O'Sullivan to refer to the issue concerning farmers.

Mr. Michael G. O'Sullivan

The Deputies are correct about the importance of consultation. It is also hugely important to us. The model we are adopting is one that has been very successfully employed on the other side of our organisation, namely, gas networks, where over the past 30 to 40 years we have put in place nearly 2,500 km of gas infrastructural transmission pipeline crisscrossing this country. Through that process we have engaged with approximately 6,000 landowners. We have a very good model in situ in this organisation in terms of how we do consultation and engagement. As Mr. Grant outlined, we are in a consultation process at the moment. This is the fourth leg of the consultation process. This particular exercise has involved very extensive consultation in terms of open information evenings, of which we had eight in total, spread across the pipeline route. We had six landowner information evenings. Of the 500 landowners impacted across the 170 km we had a turnout of approximately 350 landowners at the information evenings. We are now actively engaging on an individual basis with the landowners who did not turn up to get their feedback and input into the process. We are in the middle of that process.

We have land liaison officers on the ground working individually with each particular landowner looking at the local issues associated with the 200 m preferred pipeline route. What we will do in the coming months is take on board the issues and concerns they have raised and, to the maximum extent possible, take them into consideration in the context of coming up with the final design for this pipeline option. Consultation is very important to us. It is how we operate as an organisation. We have successfully done it previously in respect of the gas networks infrastructure and we are taking that model and implementing it in the context of the consultation processes here. All of the Deputies are correct that it is really important that we get the consultation right. We are certainly not rushing in terms of the consultation process. It is really important to us that we get all of the views and opinions of landowners and other stakeholders and take them on board so that ultimately when we go into the planning process all of the stakeholders are on board in terms of what we are trying to achieve.

Mr. Jerry Grant

I invite Ms Coleman to comment on the matter of the environmental studies.

Ms Claire Coleman

Senator O'Sullivan asked about scoping. We published the environmental impact statement scoping report alongside the final options appraisal report in November 2016. Prior to that as well we consulted on a draft scoping report with all of the prescribed bodies and we incorporated the feedback we received from that into this scoping report that is now out for public consultation.

We have received some feedback on it to date. Scoping is an iterative process so we will continually change the scope of the environmental studies that need to be undertaken for this project.

I thank Ms Coleman for her comments.

I thank the delegation for its answers.

I shall declare my view at this point. I am open to being convinced about the worthiness of this project. I am not against it in principle. I know from talking to senior water managers in South Dublin County Council, the local authority in which I live, that there is a need for additional capacity and diversification. I do not dispute any of those things. The issues are as follows. What is the level of that need? What is the most appropriate source or sources of that diversification? I accept the arguments that the move from Louth Derg to Parteen deals with many of the environmental concerns about an impact on ecosystems and the River Shannon.

The Kennedy report, whatever about the motivations of the people who wrote it, raises important questions. I have read the Irish Water documentation, the Kennedy report and the various exchanges since. Many questions asked by the authors of the report have not been answered and they have not been answered here today. Members of this committee would like to hear the answers. I shall repeat some of the questions again because they are important.

I do not dispute that there is an additional water need. In the 2006 report it was projected that Dublin would need 665 million litres per day in 2015. In the 2010 report the projection was downsized to 573 million litres per day. In 2015, the real water requirement was 540 million litres per day. Obviously we must project forward. If these figures are correct then how can we be sure that projections into the future will not have the same differential? That is an important point, regardless of source. Likewise, the methods for calculating the projected need have gone through various changes. One has the Tobin report, the Indecon report and Irish Water's methodology for calculating. Why are different methodologies chosen? How do different methodologies affect the projected level of need?

Mr. Grant cited the national planning framework and his answer is insufficient. The framework will be the master strategic planning framework for the State for the next number of years. Therefore, it will be the high level document within which any major and minor infrastructural project must take account. The Minister has told us that he wants to reverse a particular demographic, social, economic and infrastructural trend with this plan. Some of us are worried that the current proposal by Irish Water will go ahead before the plan is agreed and put on a statutory footing. One might have pipe-led development. It means, irrespective of the Government's plan and many of us hope that we will be able to sign up to it if it is a good one, the proposal may run counter to it and, therefore, may be a drag against what many of us want to see, namely, more balanced regional development. We should take cognisance of the plan. I would like to know, specifically, how Irish Water thinks it is appropriate to move to planning permission before we know what is contained in the national planning framework.

I shall not repeat all of the points in terms of the other plans. I shall comment on the river basin management plan, and my view is also relevant to groundwater. My understanding is, and please correct me if I am wrong, we do not know what the level of groundwater in the area surrounding the Dublin water supply region is because there is no data available. That data is being collected by the EPA in the most comprehensive form to date. Having that information would definitively let us know whether there are groundwater supplies that could be used, irrespective of the issues of opposition or otherwise. Surely knowing that information would be better because the only report that we have dates from 2008 and there are significant problems with same.

Not all of my questions were answered. On Dublin Bay and the environmental impact of the increased wastewater issues, has the increased volumes of wastewater that this project would bring into Dublin Bay been discussed with the European Commission in the context of the current infringement proceedings under the urban wastewater directive? If not, why not? Should such a matter not be discussed? This matter is of direct relevance to whether the European Commission will be satisfied that what is being done in Ringsend, which is good, will tackle the problem.

Mr. Grant mentioned that the strategic environment assessment is referenced in a broader SEA. There is no SEA for this project. Why? What will it cost? How long will it take?

In terms of the engagements on the river basin management plan and abstraction regulations, who is meeting whom? How often do they meet? Are they meetings of a technical nature? Are they just high level update meetings? Such information would enable us to understand the extent to which those two very important pieces of work feed into the detail of the plan by Irish Water.

I must speak about the Trump Administration in the Dáil shortly so I hope I get answers to my questions. I am unhappy with what I have heard. What is the headway between supply and demand in the greater Dublin area today? Is it between 3% to 4%?

Mr. Jerry Grant

It is probably more. On an average day it is about 8% but that is taking no peak into account.

The simple sum is that if demand increases we cannot supply it.

Mr. Jerry Grant

Yes.

If there is an interruption in supply we are bunched. There is no way any of the other rivers or sources of water, groundwater or otherwise, can meet the demand for water in Dublin.

I can be corrected on the exact location of the following. Due to a major supply going into Dublin and a geological fault in the rock, and theoretically it could happen tomorrow or in 1,000 years, there could be a major significant interruption in supply to the greater Dublin area. All of this is due to an accident of geology. Is that a fact? It is a fact that the water supply at this moment is very precarious.

A company called Intel spent €13 million augmenting the water supply in Kildare a couple of years ago. There is no solution that does not involve increasing and augmenting the water supply in Dublin. There is no solution that meets the risks, potential or otherwise. There is no solution that meets the demand for the greater Dublin area for economic development. There is no solution to saying we have a huge supply of water in Ireland but in the wrong place. That is the question that Deputy Ó Broin raised in terms of regional development. Mr. Grant is quite right that it is a huge prize for Ireland if we augment our water supply and locate it where it will be needed. That is my honest opinion too. We just have to concentrate on this aspect.

I am disappointed in one sense with what Mr. Grant has said but understand that he represents Irish Water. One must go beyond the legalities, planning permissions and reach out to communities in a bigger and greater way. There is no advantage that does not include communities buying into this project 100%. That is the only way because otherwise this project will not succeed. It will be delayed and fought over. There will be protracted legal cases. That is the gap.

I have always been impressed with Mr. Grant. He is one of the few officials from Irish Water that has impressed me. He has an amazing encyclopaedic knowledge of these matters.

In terms of the non-Garryhinch proposals of Irish Water, how many days of water supply to serve Dublin is stated in the proposals right now? What is the name of the current reservoir?

Mr. Jerry Grant

The reservoir now is Lough Derg and the Parteen basin.

No. When this project is constructed what is Irish Water's reservoir timeline? When Garryhinch existed there was a six-month reserve of water for the whole of Dublin. In other words, there was a reservoir that could hold a six-month supply. That is what I was told. Mr. Grant is shaking his head but I have the documents that were given to me in my office. If supply was interrupted one had a six-month supply in the reservoir to feed Dublin.

Mr. Jerry Grant

There is now no intermediate storage. We are using the storage in Lough Derg and the Parteen basin.

Irish Water's plan has no storage.

Mr. Jerry Grant

There is Lough Derg.

The point was to keep a reserve to deal with an interrupted supply.

The security of supply in Garryhinch - the water is there and it can be pumped - was a huge benefit, and that was the point of Garryhinch. I know it is now not going to happen, but the economic model or cost-benefit analysis did not include the social benefits, the employment benefits, the huge potential of the whole plan. I am concerned about it. I know the costs have gone down significantly compared to costs I looked at, but what is happening now is very regrettable.

Mr. Grant spoke about the timeline being extended out. I do not think we can afford that time. If there is such a small headway in terms of supply and demand, and if the project is pushed back to the mid-2020s or 2025, there is going to be a crisis before that time.

Notwithstanding the disappointment in my region for the Garryhinch project not being the preferred route, and the consequent loss of benefits for the midlands region, let alone Dublin, during the course of the planning application to the board there is a responsibility on local authorities to ensure that all potential benefits of a project are considered. Peat extraction is nearing an end, and the Garryhinch option would have offered an alternative, beneficial use for the site. I acknowledge what has been said about the benefit to the ecosystem and wider environmental surroundings of Lough Derg from the Parteen basin alternative. I am sure there is merit in that, but these are questions that will ultimately be decided on by the board in arriving at their final decision. In the event of not granting I am sure they would make recommendations and conditions associated with other options that had been considered.

I think Deputy Ó Broin is receiving representations from many of my own constituents who have questions relating to the Kennedy report. I am aware that the witnesses are meeting with those associated with that report in the coming weeks. I would ask them to provide the members of this committee, and members of the local authorities, with a synopsis of that meeting, details of the points raised by the Kennedy report, the response and the conclusions.

In the event of a citizen not being happy even at that stage, what is their recourse to challenge the decision on a preferred route? Is it solely open to them to submit their objections to the planning application when it is made to An Bord Pleanála? Is it only a judicial review that can halt the process at present? That needs to be clarified for people who may still have a difficulty with the route and its selection, and wish to challenge that in the future.

When Irish Water was formed it had a service level agreement, SLA, with local authorities. That was to go until 2025. Three years of that contract have now elapsed. The talk is that Irish Water is now contracting out work, and that the SLAs with local authorities will be shortened. It seems that Irish Water hopes that the SLAs will not go until 2025, as they are saying that in the next four or five years all their work with local authorities will be finished. Clarification on this issue is so important. I am a firm believer that if one gives work, one gives work locally. If one contracts work, one contracts work locally. I have massive concerns on that issue, particularly concerning the local authorities. In my own area there are maybe 50 people who are now working with Irish Water through the local authority. What will happen if Irish Water decides that it is going to come out of the SLA quicker? What will happen to those jobs, and what is the long-term picture?

There is a lot of confusion about water meters. It now seems that if one has a leak inside one's own premises, one is responsible for that. This is something that I want Irish Water to come back on. There is a lot of confusion on this issue. Local authorities are fixing leaks in local authority housing estates, but will not do so for private estates. Maybe that could be clarified.

I am sure Mr. Grant will not mind clarifying one or two things there, but it is a different agenda-----

I know it is, but I might not get the chance again to ask that question.

I am sure Mr. Grant will meet with the Senator after the meeting and go through that.

The Senator cannot go through it every week.

When representing a constituency, anything to do with Irish Water and local authorities are the questions that need to get answered because they are the questions that constituents come back on.

I am not arguing with the Senator. Mr. Grant did not come in to speak about that today. He might just talk with the Senator after the meeting if he does not want to answer those questions here.

If he could answer them I would appreciate it.

There is a water meeting going on at 12 o'clock as well.

I live beside the Vartry reservoir. This is the first time in its history it has not filled over the winter. We are now in mid-February and it is still almost empty. The impact of that will not be felt until later on this year; the springs around it are only filling up with the water that is there. There is no doubt there is a need for a new supply for Dublin. This is one of the infrastructural projects that we will look back on in time. It will be talked about like equally critical pieces of infrastructure such as the Vartry reservoir, built in the 1860s, and Poulaphouca reservoir, which flooded a whole village in the 1940s. Public consultation is key to the success of this project. As was said, it is only when a project has a direct impact on somebody that awareness of it is raised. If anything is to be learned from the Vartry project, it is that it was not until there was a direct impact on them that the community raised awareness that two-thirds of the water flow could have been reduced into the Vartry. This is an exciting project. It is a project that the country needs to secure a water supply now and into the future. I am supportive of it, but we must directly consult communities about it.

Mr. Jerry Grant

There is a very fundamental point around need. Deputy Ó Broin referred to requiring 545 million litres a day in 2015 . That is the average demand on a given day. There is no peak in that; there is no headroom in that. Any city or country region would have a peak factor of 15% on demand for a dry period. Headroom means the risk around either demand or supply.

If an industry requires additional water supply because of demand or because of a supply-side issue such as a pollution incident at Vartry or Poulaphouca involving chemicals and so on we have no margin. In terms of forward planning, these are the factors that are missed in many of the reports that have been submitted to us. They are factors which a water utility is acutely aware of. It is possible for a customer to determine water demand and need every day but if a water utility tries to operate on that basis, it will fail. The day it fails it lets everybody down.

In regard to the methods of calculation of demographic projections, once we start to talk about a timeframe of 40 years we move beyond the realm of CSO data and normal planning but that is the reality of a project like this. In this regard we are looking to 2050. While projections might be out by a factor of a few percentage points in the long run, it does not make any difference because the scheme is necessary. To pair down a scheme on the basis of a tighter projection makes no economic sense because the marginal cost of an extra couple of inches on a pipeline diameter makes so much sense. In the context of the national planning framework, there is nothing that has been said so far in the scoping document that suggests that the broad growth projections about which we are speaking will not repeat and continue. If the numbers that we have rolled out, which are median projections, are to hold it will require balanced regional development because the possibility is that they could be higher if some of the previous patterns repeated.

I agree that there should not be pipeline-led planning. However, if the desire is to avoid that and to still allow the water supply to be a determinant, then one is inviting failure. In other words, if provision is based purely on what one would like to happen and something else happens, then the water supply fails. As a country, we cannot afford that.

As well as being involved in the business of running Irish Water, I meet industrialists and other clients. There is an amazing amount of focus on water supply and sustainable water supply by international industries because it is such a problem in so many parts of Europe, Asia and the United States. We take it for granted. I do not want to be emotional about this but simple sums will not address this issue. We must address the risks around 10 years' time, 20 years' time and 30 years' time. This is about future generations. The requirement in 2025 might only be 10 million litres on a typical day but it is 10 million litres we do not have right now. Given our leakage figures, we will be very hard pressed to achieve the targets set out, although they are more aggressive than what has been achieved in Scotland. Very few of the English and Welsh water companies reach the pace of recovery of leakage. Irish Water has been very aggressive in that regard.

On the river basin planning process and groundwater issue, a huge amount of study has been done on groundwater in the eastern region, all of which states that while it is locally useful there is no major strategic source available of the scale required. Much of the work that is currently being done by the EPA on this issue is around vulnerability to pollution and management of the water environment. For example, the Kildare aquifers are part and parcel of the groundwater recharge of the River Liffey. That is where the groundwater summer flow comes from. Interference with the groundwater causes interference with the River Liffey base-flow. We are finely balanced in terms of water resources in this region. There is no magic bullet.

In regard to Dublin Bay, Ringsend and the EU, the EU demands of us that we reduce the nitrogen limit to ten and the phosphorous limit to one. That is what we are trying to do. The EU has not set any targets and is not questioning the growth factors. It has set those two mandatory parameters under the sensitive waters directive and we are endeavouring to comply with them over the next few years through massive investment in Ringsend.

Deputy O'Dowd spoke about Garryhinch. It is useful to have raw water storage in the midlands in a situation where a pipeline bursts but the reality is there is already tremendous water storage at the bottom of Lough Derg. It is a fantastic resource. There is 18-inch control on the lake out of which we require a tiny amount for drinking water compared with that going into hydro. There is no valid argument for putting further raw water storage half way along the route. It does not make sense. The decision-making process is the remit of An Bord Pleanála. A judicial review would be the next step and it is often availed of in the context of major controversial projects.

Senator Murnane O'Connor asked about the service level agreement, SLA. A service level agreement is in place and it has a 12-year lifespan but it-----

Mr. Jerry Grant

It is not fixed in terms of scope. The point that people miss about the SLA is that it was never meant to be a fixed measure in terms of what a local authority or Irish Water must do. Irish Water is an evolving organisation. It is building operational capacity. For example, design-build-operate, DBO, projects in local government are currently contracted out on long-term contracts. Irish Water is no longer doing that. We are breaking contracts into two, five, seven and ten years such that we can start to retake control of them when we build operational capacity. This requires us to do more regional working and to look at the skill sets we create to do certain things. The SLA allows for this.

In terms of the process in which we are currently involved, we are examining how in the context of the remaining years of the SLA we can get economic efficiencies and improvements in service and what this means for the SLA. As I said, there is a process of discussion going on with the local government sector, through the CCMA, and the Department in this regard. The degree to which we need to make changes or not will be determined in that process. It will certainly not be determined by Irish Water. There will be changes over time because we are looking at re-engineering the water industry in Ireland, raising skills levels and having less manual work on the ground and more visibility through telemetry, planning and so on. This is not about contracting out. There is no intention on the part of Irish Water to contract out work that is currently done within the public sector but we might do it differently and on a regional basis into the future. If we are to achieve the very challenging targets we have been set in terms of economic efficiency, we will need to do that.

Senator Murnane O'Connor also asked about responsibility for plumbing. Householders have always been responsible for problems in their properties. If a property is a local authority house then the local authority is responsible for maintenance of the plumbing but the householder has always been responsible for leaks on their own property. We have been offering a free first fix for leaks in, say, a driveway. It is a limited scheme but a very effective one. To date, we have fixed 28,000 leaks under our first fix scheme.

There have been so many leakages over the years because our pipes are so old. Funding is an issue. There have always been leakages but we appear to have more now than ever before. Due to a lack of funding, leakages in estates and so on are not being addressed and this is holding up completion of road projects in those estates. As Mr. Grant will be aware, if a problem arises with a pipeline Monday to Friday the contact is the local authority but when it comes to problems arising at the weekend the contact is Irish Water. While we are making progress there is still a lot of confusion around what are the responsibilities of local authorities versus Irish Water. I accept it will take time to clarify this situation. The concerns of the SLA need to be addressed. Mr. Grant stated that it may not remain in place for the full 12 years. It is important people are kept informed about the long-term picture in that regard.

Mr. Jerry Grant

I would be happy to correspond with the Senator on that matter.

I thank Mr. Grant, Mr. O'Sullivan and Ms Coleman for their engagement today with the committee and for the very detailed briefing documents they sent to the committee in advance of this meeting. They might take on board the views expressed by members today in the context of moving the project forward, particularly members' comments on public engagement which I know Irish Water is trying to focus in on. I look forward to further engagement by the committee with Irish Water.

The joint committee adjourned at 11.30 a.m. until 11 a.m. on Tuesday, 21 February 2017.
Top
Share