Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Joint Committee on Public Petitions and the Ombudsmen díospóireacht -
Thursday, 25 Apr 2024

Public Petition on Kiltimagh Water Scheme: Discussion

Public petition No. P00021/22 is on the Kiltimagh water scheme from Mr. Thomas Carney. Our next order of business is engagement on that public petition, which will be split into two sessions. In the first session from 1.45 p.m. to 2.45 p.m., we will hear from Mr. Thomas Carney, petitioner and campaigner, Kiltimagh and Cleragh-Lisduff group water scheme, and Mr, Alan Ivers, campaigner. In the second session from 2.45 p.m. to 4.15 p.m., we will have from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage Mr. Douglas Kelly, principal officer, and Mr. Luke Varley, assistant principal officer, rural water unit. We will have representatives from Mayo County Council, namely, Mr. John Condon, director of services, Mr. Michael McDermott, senior executive engineer and Ms Bernadette Bourke, executive engineer, rural water programme. Representatives from Uisce Éireann here today are Mr. Des Joyce, water treatment asset planning manager, and Mr. Dermot Phelan, connections delivery manager.

Before we start, I will explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected pursuant to both the Constitution and statute by absolute privilege. Witnesses who are to give evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. They are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or to otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in regard to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Before we hear from our witnesses, I propose we publish their opening statements on the committee's website. Is that agreed? Agreed.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to extend a warm welcome to the witnesses from the Kiltimagh and Cleragh-Lisduff group water scheme who are attending virtually. Mr. Carney and Mr. Ivers will read out their opening statements. I suggest that Mr. Carney make his opening statement for approximately ten minutes and then Mr. Ivers will follow. We will then have questions and comments from members, each of whom will have approximately ten minutes. That should allow members to come back in on a second round of questions.

I call Mr. Carney to make his opening statement.

Mr. Thomas Carney

I wish everyone a good afternoon. I am sorry; I have a little cold. Esteemed committee members, I am here to speak on behalf of the resilient community of Cleragh, situated in Kiltimagh, County Mayo. Over the span of 12 years, our village, which is comprised of more than 30 homes, has persevered through arduous trials in the pursuit of securing a reliable water source. Despite our unwavering dedication and numerous collaborative efforts with Mayo County Council’s water department, our journey has been fraught with complexities and setbacks. Year after year, we have been assured that grants have been secured and the project has gone out to tender, yet we have not seen the light at the end of the tunnel.

While the County Mayo water department has provided sporadic guidance and engagement, regrettably, our progress has been hindered by inconsistencies, communication lapses and bureaucratic obstacles. Our residents, grappling with contaminated wells and bureaucratic red tape, endure daily hardships, exacerbated by the seasonal plight of dry wells during the summer. Compounding our plight, the ongoing challenges imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic have further underscored the urgent need for a dependable water source.

Recent revelations stemming from our community's diligent efforts, including three freedom of information requests, have brought to light disconcerting truths. It has come to our attention that crucial applications to Irish Water were delayed until prompted by our inquiries. This delay has only prolonged the suffering of our residents, who have endured misinformation, unclear guidance and the looming threat of displacement due to water scheme challenges. Moreover, despite our community's commitment to financial contributions and successful grant procurement, transparency surrounding fund allocations for our water scheme project remains elusive. The lack of clarity not only undermines our collective efforts, but also erodes trust in the process.

In light of these pressing challenges, we implore the esteemed committee to recognise the gravity of our situation and urgently explore avenues for resolution. Time is of the essence as we strive to secure access to safe and reliable water for the well-being of our village and cherished residents. We humbly request the committee's support in expediting this process, whether through liaising with higher authorities or engaging advocacy groups. Members' prompt attention to our plight will not only alleviate the suffering of Cleragh’s residents but also will reaffirm the values of compassion and solidarity upon which our community stands, with sincere gratitude for members' consideration and assistance. Just to let members know, the last freedom of information request, just to find out information on our own water scheme, cost us €331. The money was not well spent because the information we got was lacking. I thank members. That is my opening statement.

I thank Mr. Carney. I ask Mr. Ivers for his opening statement.

Mr. Alan Ivers

I wish everyone a good afternoon. I thank members for giving me the opportunity to speak to them today. My name is Alan Ivers. I was born and raised in a village in the Cleragh-Lisduff area. I grew up in a family of 13 in a house with no running water but that was in the 1980s. We are now in 2024 and I still cannot believe we are in exactly the same situation whereby homes have no access to clean water. I am lucky to live at the upper end of Lisduff. I built a new house and joined a private group water scheme. My original family home is in Cleragh. I have the house rented to a family at the moment.

The family is in a constant struggle, given the problems associated with living in a house with no running water. Water is supplied by a well, which is old and unreliable. Unfortunately, every summer, the well will run dry, no matter how much rainfall we get. There are constant problems with appliances, showers and the washing machine as a result of the low pressure that occurs when the well runs dry.

I will give the committee an example of the last summer when the well ran dry for a number of weeks. Mayo County Council had installed a tap at Lisduff National School, which is approximately 1 km away. This meant the village had access to water but, unfortunately, this was a far cry from being able to stand under a shower in the morning and having clean, flowing water. As the landlord, every morning, I had to take on the challenge of bringing water from the tank and putting it into the well. The well soaked up most of the water I poured in. I did this in the morning, at lunch time and in the evening, as did all my neighbours who lived in the village, so they could get their own private water. I dread facing another summer without water in our village.

I have spoken to my tenants about finding alternative accommodation but, unfortunately, as we know, there is none. Young families are now moving into the village, and these will have the same struggles as my parents did. I see my own children, who will possibly hope to continue to live in the village. They are growing up. At this rate, they will continue to fight the same struggle as the rest of us. We appreciate the efforts that have been made in recent months and we feel that we are closer than ever, but I am now calling on the committee to please see this through to the end. Whatever funding is required must be applied for and made available for the completion of this project. I again thank the committee for its attention.

I call Deputy Conway-Walsh.

I thank the Cathaoirleach for allowing me to attend the committee today to discuss this issue. I am not a permanent member of the committee, but I obviously wanted to be here. I am glad to have heard Mr. Thomas Carney and Mr. Alan Ivers give their submissions. As they know, I am very familiar with the scheme and the challenges that have been posed over the last number of years. You do not need to be from Mayo or Kiltimagh to understand and recognise the gravity of the situation today. I am glad to be here because it presents an opportunity to progress a solution and finally get an outcome. I commend the committee and the community on their resilience in keeping this at the top of the agenda, in spite of all the obstacles and challenges they have faced along the way.

My first question is about why the crucial applications to Irish Water were delayed. Why do the witnesses think they were delayed? I know an impact study had to be done and planning permission has been granted in recent months, but were there any other factors that caused the delay to the submission of the application from Mayo County Council to Irish Water? That question is probably for Mr. Carney.

Mr. Thomas Carney

I thank Deputy Conway-Walsh for her time. We appreciate it. We were told that applications had gone to Irish Water, which sounded good, but we became suspicious after months and years. We therefore submitted a freedom of information request, FOI, to Irish Water. We received a response that stated that flow capacity was a big issue. I asked if any studies had ever been done. The answer to that was that none had ever been done by the council or Irish Water.

In my time and in my father’s time, the river has never run dry. It is one of the major rivers there. That is why the treatment plant is built on that river. The treatment plant is within sight of my house. It is in the village. That is the sad part of it. The whole scheme is very short.

To return to the Deputy’s question, the only way we found out was when we paid the money to get the information from the council. It showed that no application had been filed. Once we prompted them via the freedom of information request, the application was then filed. It took that €331 to poke that along. That was one of three. We cannot keep funding it. Again, last week, I had to do another freedom information request to find out what is happening to our scheme. To the question, no application was filed and Irish Water proved that to be true. Irish Water has been responsive. That is where we are. I do not know where we are, because nobody knows.

I understand that an application has now been submitted to Irish Water.

Mr. Thomas Carney

Correct.

Irish Water has accepted that and the additional funding has to be secured in order to get the project done. Is that Mr. Carney's understanding of it?

Mr. Thomas Carney

Correct. Also, we are not being given a free ride here. We are paying. We got letters that stated a figure of €1,350. Each home got a letter stating that figure was our part to pay. Members of the older generation are on fixed income and they struggled with that figure, but we convinced them to go to the credit union and make an application. Now, however, the latest news is that they have bumped that figure up to €3,000. I do not know how the older people, or even most of the families, will pay that amount of money. It is a moving target. If the Deputy were to ask me what the figure is now, I would have to say that we have no idea.

When was a letter sent containing the figure of €1,350 in order to get people’s agreement?

Mr. Thomas Carney

That was approximately five years ago. That was given and that was our amount. That is what we agreed to pay.

When were the subsequent letters containing the figure of €3,000 sent out?

Mr. Thomas Carney

We have no letters. This is hearsay. This is what we have been told. We cannot get direct communication from the office in the council. When we go in, we are met with a little hostility. We are asked why we are there. The other issue is that when we call nobody is ever there. We never get a response to any calls or emails. Last week, for example, I sent two emails, but got no response.

Okay. At this stage, therefore, we do not know how much the connection fee will be or whether it is consistent with connection fees for other group water schemes in Mayo or the west. We would like to try to clear up how much the connection fee will be, what that connection fee will be made up of and for how long people have to pay for it. It was my understanding that the connection fee has to be agreed to and paid up. Off the top of my head, the latest one we dealt with was regarding the Murrisk water scheme in Mayo, where the majority of householders did not sign up or pay their fee. Therefore, the funding could not go ahead.

Mr. Thomas Carney

Yes. We were advised that one of the grants was allocated to us. The figure was more than €90,000 but we are not sure what happened to all the money. Here is why. Multiple surveys have been done for environmental, mapping and everything else that goes with working with a village, but they scrapped it and started off from square one. Just last week, we were advised that a new survey is being done on everything we did three years ago. They are starting from scratch once again. We were asked if we would help with a survey when we had done 90% of it the last time. We said “No”. We asked what happened to the last survey but we cannot get an answer. They are now sending down a team from some consulting firm in Dublin to do the study and work on the village again.

It is my understanding that the studies would be done prior to the application being made to Irish Water. Is that so? Can we take it that all the necessary studies have been done at this stage? Planning permission has been granted. We are now at a stage where Irish Water has accepted an amount that needs to be submitted for the cost of the overall scheme so that adequate funding is in place to do it. That can be done as additional funding.

Mr. Thomas Carney

Well, that is what should be done.

When we were advised we had to have a committee we set up a committee. We followed through 100% on our end of the agreement with whatever was wanted. All through Covid, we did all the footwork because staff had to be at home to be safe. We went around and got signatures, commitments and easements where the piping was going to go. We did everything. We went with an engineer and mapped it but that mapping was scrapped because it was in the wrong location. However, we followed the engineer's instructions. To be quite honest, we do not know where we are at.

Hopefully we will get clarification today on where we are at in regard to the scheme and what needs to be done. I hope we will also get a defined timeline so people will know exactly when they can expect to have water. I agree that it is an intolerable situation that Kiltimagh, Cleragh or any other area is without water at this stage. The interface between the group water schemes, Irish Water and the local authority needs to be clear and there needs to be proper accountability. I hope that some of the questions will be answered today and we will have a clearly defined pathway from here on in. I thank Mr. Carney and Mr. Ivers for being here today. Is there anything else they would like me to raise with Irish Water, the Department or Mayo County Council?

Mr. Thomas Carney

If we want to keep villages populated and houses from being abandoned or boarded up we have to provide basic services. This year we will probably have a very dry summer. Mr. Ivers's tenants will be on the council's list for a house or they will be in a hotel somewhere or Breaffy House. This is what is happening. If we want to keep villages whole and functioning we have to provide basic services. Back in the 1950s my father was at the council offices and there were seven children in his family. Mr. Ivers's parents reared 13 children. They struggled through washing and everything else done with children. Here we are again in 2024. It has taken 12 years to put in a mile and a half of piping through fields. Everybody is 100% behind it going through whatever field, ditch or gap but they are met with bureaucracy that ties up everything. This is a minor project. Last year I read in a newspaper that thousands of euro were sitting unspent in the council office. The newspaper did an article on it. What is happening is a shame. We need to figure out how to make it work.

I agree. I am part of group water scheme myself. I am in the Drum-Binghamstown group water scheme. I want to take this opportunity to commend all of the volunteers in the group water schemes in Mayo and throughout the country. I will speak again to Irish Water, as I have spoken to it before, about the write-off of the debts on some of these schemes. We cannot expect volunteers to shoulder the responsibility of providing such an essential service as water to our rural communities. Areas in the east and urban areas would not put up with it. We have to find a better way. We have to cut down the bureaucracy. I hope that this will be a marker on where we are at and that we will see progress. I thank the Cathaoirleach and the committee members for accepting this petition from Kiltimagh and Cleragh.

I thank Deputy Conway-Walsh for coming to the committee. She is not a member and it shows a great interest in her community. I have a question for Mr. Carney. He mentioned the cost of freedom of information requests. He mentioned the figure of €351, if I am not mistaken. How much in total has he spent on FOIs at this point in time?

Mr. Thomas Carney

The last one cost €331. The total is probably close to €500.

In recent days the Taoiseach made a speech about people in this country who find themselves up against "city hall". It was specifically in relation to the Stardust. I cannot understand how any organisation would force a community to go down the FOI route to get answers to simple questions that should be answered by default. The local authority is there to serve the community and not to fight it. It appears the local authority is fighting the community at every step of the way. Mr. Carney mentioned the cost of the connection fee, which he estimates will be €3,000. Is this the rumour or hearsay?

Mr. Thomas Carney

It was passed on to us that it had increased to €3,000. For sure there is a cost of at least €1,350 which was what we were told in the letter to each house. That is what convinced everybody to go for the water scheme. Now this has increased to €3,000 because of costs such as staff time and everything else that goes with it. We know for sure it will cost at least €1,350 but we hear it will be €3,000. We do not have this in writing so it might be hearsay but how much we have to pay should be clarified. If the charge is raised very high people on pensions will not be able to pay it as they do not have the money. The cost of living for the average family anywhere in Ireland has gone through the roof.

Would it be fair to say that dithering has caused the installation cost to increase? The amount of €1,350 seems to have been acceptable to the community but because no action has taken place the people have been caught by escalating costs of labour and material. Is this a fair assumption?

Mr. Thomas Carney

That is 100% accurate. If we wait long enough prices increase. The miscommunication, the dithering, the sitting on the fence and the inaction have created financial problems. This problem has not be caused by us. Nothing the committee will hear today will show that we did not do our part. My understanding from when Ms Bourke first walked the village with us was that the committee would be a liaison between the council and the community. We have done everything we possibly can. We have asked for and begged for meetings. Perhaps, at the 11th hour the day before, we will get the news that we will have a meeting. People have to plan and live. People with children have to plan. Older people need to get a seat in a car to go to the town hall. They cannot just get on a bike. Senator Craughwell is right that the inaccuracy, the dithering and the sitting on the wall mean that costs have gone up and now we are getting saddled with its failures.

I want to put in a formal proposal to the committee. I assume the FOIs went to Mayo County Council.

Mr. Thomas Carney

That is correct.

I propose that we write to Mayo County Council and ask for a refund of the costs of the FOI. I do not know whether it can be done legally but it should be done. It is outrageous that a citizen of this country would be forced to put his hand in his pocket to get answers to simple questions that the local authority is obliged to provide. To force somebody into an FOI is absolutely unsustainable, unless there is a secret that would involve State security. To ask people to put their hands in their pockets for something the local authority is obliged to provide, and then provided having been paid for it, is unjustified. If, having been paid, it came back to say it still could not provide it perhaps there might be justification but there is no justification for taking €500 out of this community.

It is a question we can ask in the second part of the session when Mayo County Council will come before the committee.

That is excellent. I have some questions for Mr. Ivers.

I thank Mr. Ivers for his statement. He talks about water being unavailable and having to go and draw water and put it into his well, so he is topping up the well two or three times a day.

Mr. Alan Ivers

Yes, in the summertime, when the well is dry.

During dry periods. I do not know if Mr. Ivers is qualified to answer this or not. Are there health and safety issues in transferring water from one source to another place? For example, regarding the methodology used for transportation, and I do not mean to put Mr. Ivers on the spot. I am concerned about the consumers of the water he draws, whether it is drawn in suitable containers, how many gallons he draws at a time and that type of thing.

Mr. Alan Ivers

It is not a suitable container and they cannot drink the water after I put it into the well. It is a wide container but the water is not drinkable because the well is contaminated from the dirt going into the bottom and probably from the container itself. However, it is the only water they have available for the shower, which then blocks up because the water is not clean. I cannot put up with another summer of this because it is not fair to me or to the tenants who live in those conditions.

I thank Mr. Ivers for being honest. He could have tried to fluff the question but he did not. He gave it straight as it is. Fair play to him for looking after those who are in the house and for doing the best he can. There is a question with respect to people's health being put at risk. I am sure, from listening to Mr. Ivers, that he has warned the family involved that they cannot drink the water.

Mr. Alan Ivers

They know they cannot drink it.

It is important that they have water. I live in urban Ireland. I have only ever had my water cut off twice and it was like somebody took away both my arms. I cannot imagine what it is like there.

I do not think there is a lot more that we need to ask the witnesses. Their honesty and straightforwardness are impressive. We will follow that up with the local authority whenever the committee is finished with this group. I thank both of the witnesses.

Does Deputy Conway-Walsh wish to come in?

No. I look forward to hearing from Mayo County Council, Irish Water and the Department. We need to focus on what we need to do from here on to make sure they have clear and clean water as quickly as possible.

Mr. Thomas Carney

In case I do not have another opportunity, I have a very short closing statement that I would like to read.

I just want to say a few words and then I will let Mr. Carney in. In this day and age, to have a whole community without water is a disgrace. I was on a county council and I know that all the talk is about clusters and bringing people from the big urban areas to rural areas, but people cannot settle in any area, rural or urban, without water. Like Mr. Ivers, I grew up in a family of 11 without any running water so I know exactly what he went through at a young age. I was seven when we got an outside tap and it was like manna from heaven. For a community to be without water and then to have a tap put 1 km away is totally wrong, as far as I am concerned.

I have several questions. Throughout the process, were the witnesses kept informed by the council or Uisce Éireann as to what was going on and why there were delays?

Mr. Alan Ivers

One issue was capacity. There was not the capacity in the water tower and no other houses could be connected until that was upgraded. However, before the upgrade, there were one-off houses closer to the town of Kiltimagh that were connected to the water supply. That was one of the reasons they said there could not be a connection.

Mr. Thomas Carney

To follow up on that, I made a freedom of information request to Irish Water concerning all of the allocations and connections issued while our application was sitting on the desk. Almost 50 connections were granted to the town of Kiltimagh for housing estates and different projects. We were told that our project did not have flow and capacity yet 50 were given out and there were no issues with flow and capacity. We were marginalised and stepped on again. When I asked why these housing projects were getting a connection when we were 12 years ahead of them, I could not get an answer.

I emphasise that the water treatment plant sits in our village. The farmers there cannot put out fertiliser, slurry or anything else on half of their farms. They cannot keep livestock out in the winter due to the fact this is a run-off for the river. They are all respectful of that and they take care of it, but we are not allowed to have water in our village where the water treatment plant is located. As I said, I can stand at my front door and look at the water treatment plant every day, but everybody else gets water except the two little villages right there.

Mr. Ivers gave us one of the reasons the groups were given for the delays. What is the witnesses’ view of the specific reasons for the delays? Would they lay the blame for the delays on Mayo County Council or Uisce Éireann? Did matters improve or get worse when Uisce Éireann was formed? They would have been dealing with Mayo County Council before Uisce Éireann was formed. Did the issues get worse or better when it was formed?

Mr. Alan Ivers

There was mixed communication when Irish Water joined. We would have been talking to the council and then to Irish Water. There was mixed communication between them and we would get one answer from one and a different answer from the other. I would say that was one part of the delay.

Mr. Thomas Carney

They do not talk to each other. They do not get along. Irish Water blames the council and the council blames Irish Water. In December, we were having a meeting and I emphasised that Irish Water had to be there along with the council so they are both on the one page. Irish Water, in an email, said it was not informed. We sent out an agenda on the points that we had to get discussed.

Furthermore, when I was calling Irish Water, I was told there was an office in Castlebar. After being frustrated, I went back to the office and I thought that, for sure, if I walked into the hall and talked to somebody, something would be done. I did not know that it is a shell. There is nobody in the office. A security guard came out and told me there had been nobody in the office for years and that I had to call Cork because there was nobody there. I have been told another story by Irish Water. It is like a dog chasing his tail.

The witnesses were given assurances that the grants were obtained and that the project had gone out to tender. When were they given those assurances?

Mr. Alan Ivers

This is the third time it has gone out for tender. The other two times, we were told it was going out for tender but, at the last minute, it was pulled because there was something wrong and it did not go for tender. This time, it has gone for tender and they have got prices back. This is where the high prices are coming from, which means the households will need to pay more than we were originally told.

I have no more questions. Unless anyone else is offering, I call Mr. Carney to make his closing statement.

Mr. Thomas Carney

I respectfully draw the attention of committee members to the broader context of our situation. For over 12 years, this application has remained stagnant on the desks of various civil servants, with limited progress made towards advancing the project. There appears to be a prevailing mindset and organisational culture that may not fully prioritise addressing issues and challenges as promptly as necessary.

This lack of commitment and accountability is noticeable, and it is clear that there is a need for greater empathy and understanding among the staff of Mayo County Council's water department regarding their obligations as civil servants. Furthermore, the current communication dynamics have led to frustration, as requests for updates or information are sometimes met with delays or defensiveness. It is essential that we foster an environment where stakeholders feel valued and heard, even amid challenges.

While the situation we face is concerning, I believe there are constructive steps we can take. The Minister, Deputy O'Brien, as the Minister for housing, has a pivotal role to play in addressing the issue. A thorough audit to identify root causes, coupled with direct collaboration with a private contractor for our water scheme, could potentially streamline the process and promote accountability. In light of recent revelations regarding unused funds earmarked for rural water schemes, it is evident that urgent attention is needed to rectify the inefficiencies present in the Mayo water department.

I thank the committee for its consideration of these suggestions. I trust that by working together, we can find a solution that ensures the efficient delivery of essential services to our community.

I have one quick supplementary question. Can Mr. Carney tell me when the scheme was first sought?

Mr. Thomas Carney

Some 12 years ago----

Mr. Thomas Carney

-----I went in and sat with Ms Bourke. She was very polite and very nice to me, and she said, "No, you are very wrong. There is no way you could be without a water supply." She pulled out a map. I showed her the village and she said I was wrong, and that she would meet me down there. We did meet, and we walked. She is very pleasant, and she said that she could not believe we were without water. I said that, furthermore, some of the houses there with poor people did not even have toilets. We had no water, so there was no need for a toilet inside the house. She said that this was going to change and that within a year to 18 months, we would have a supply there, and that because the treatment plant was so close, it would be a simple task and they would get it done. We had to follow through, get everybody's personal information, fill out the applications for the grant and the council would draw down the grant in our name. It needed all of this done, and we did it. We completed everything they gave us to the letter of the law. We made the timelines and we got it hand-delivered back but the council forgot to post it. We missed out on that rotation of grant funding so were set back for two years.

However, I am not pointing a finger. I am just talking about the frustration of trying to wash and bathe kids. General duties are hard, and they are made harder for the old people. We would appreciate the committee's compassion and understanding in getting to the bottom of this. Later today, the committee will be talking to some very educated people who are going to sell them a story but I am telling you, our story is right and you can verify any part of it. I thank the committee.

When was the formal application made to Mayo County Council from the scheme?

Mr. Thomas Carney

It was about 12 years ago.

There was an actual application in there 12 years ago. Okay.

I thank Mr. Carney and Mr. Ivers for attending the meeting. This discussion has been very beneficial and informative to the committee. The committee will consider the next steps after we talk to the other witnesses after the break. I would like to inform Mr. Carney and Mr. Ivers that they are welcome to stay online to view the second session but they will not be able to participate in that part of the meeting. We will now suspend the meeting to allow the next group of witnesses to enter.

Sitting suspended at 2.34 p.m. and resumed at 2.44 p.m.

I extend a warm welcome to the following witnesses: from the rural water unit in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Mr. Douglas Kelly, principal officer, and Mr. Luke Varley, assistant principal officer; from Mayo County Council, Mr. John Condon, director of services, Mr. Michael McDermott, senior executive engineer, and Ms Bernadette Bourke, executive engineer on the rural water programme; and from Uisce Éireann, Mr. Des Joyce, water treatment asset planning manager, and Mr. Dermot Phelan, connections delivery manager.

Mr. Kelly of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage will read his opening statement first, followed by Mr. Condon of Mayo County Council and Mr. Joyce of Uisce Éireann. I suggest they all make their opening statements for approximately ten minutes and we will then have questions and comments from members. Each member will have approximately ten minutes and they should also be able to contribute supplementary questions.

Mr. Douglas Kelly

Good afternoon Chair and members of the committee. I thank the committee for the invitation to the Department to contribute to the discussion on the proposed community water connection for Cleragh, Kiltimagh, County Mayo.

I am the principal officer in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage with responsibility for the rural water unit within the water division of the Department. As the Chair mentioned, I am joined by my colleague Mr. Varley, assistant principal officer, who is head of operations in the rural water unit. I propose to limit my comments to the rural water programme which is under the remit of the Department and as they relate to the issue in question. I will not be in a position to speak on issues relating to Mayo County Council or Uisce Éireann directly.

State investment in water services is provided for in the national development plan and, in practice, is primarily delivered by Uisce Éireann. As set out in the Programme for Government: Our Shared Future, the Government is committed to continue investment in our rural communities. In addition, and in line with Government policy objectives, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage continues to invest in water and wastewater infrastructure to support the development of our rural communities. The Department recognises that investment in water services is a key requirement to help to sustain our rural areas and improve the quality of life of our people.

I am sorry to interrupt. I read the statement. What relevance does it have to the discussion today? It sets out the Department's position with respect to water and the only thing it offers at the end is that the final or second last paragraph tells us that no application has been made by Mayo County Council for this water scheme. I do not mean to cut off Mr. Kelly. He put a lot of work into this and it sets out the Department's position clearly, but we need to get to the people who should be delivering the job. I do not know how the Chair feels about that.

For the sake of a few minutes, we will let Mr. Kelly finish his opening statement.

I apologise to Mr. Kelly.

Mr. Douglas Kelly

There is no problem either way.

More than €243 million of funding, over the period 2021 to 2025, has been provided under the national development plan for non-Uisce Éireann investment in the rural water sector, which includes €175 million of funding through the rural water programme. The multi-annual rural water programme is the primary funding stream providing capital funding to address the challenges faced by the rural water sector in maintaining, renewing and developing systems and networks. The core purpose of the programme is to provide the sector with the necessary funding for projects that will improve the quality, quantity and reliability of water services and address infrastructure deficits that are having an impact on the provision of safe and secure water services to rural dwellers. The Department also provides investment support to individual households through grants for drinking water, including private wells, and wastewater, for septic tanks.

The first cycle of the multi-annual programme was introduced in 2016 to replace a previous block funding grant arrangement. In 2019, the Department invited applications from local authorities to fund projects under a further cycle of the programme. The Department received in excess of 900 applications. Of these, approximately 700 individual projects were approved for funding by the Minister, including some where emergency work and additional funding was required. Many of these projects have now been fully completed, while work continues and is at different stages on other more complex projects. Exchequer funding of more than €61.5 million was provided in 2023 under the rural water programme to fund projects and households to deliver improvements to the quality, reliability and efficiency of water services in rural areas.

The Minister launched a new multi-annual programme for the years 2024 to 2026 on 17 January this year. Local authorities were invited to submit applications under a range of funding measures before the closing date on 12 April this year. The Department has received applications for funding for priority projects and is currently completing a process of validating and, where necessary, clarifying issues with the local authorities. When completed, the Department will refer all valid applications to an independent expert panel. The panel is established and tasked with critically evaluating each request for funding received under the programme and will make recommendations on individual projects for the consideration of the Minister.

Working in partnership with the key stakeholders in the sector, including the local authorities, Uisce Éireann, local communities and group water schemes, the Department is using Exchequer funding in a cost-effective manner to improve the water services available to rural Ireland. Local authorities play a particularly vital and very effective role in supporting the delivery of the programme and are responsible for the administration and oversight of the delivery of individual projects in their areas.

Mayo County Council submitted an application under the programme in 2019 for a community water connection in Cleragh, Kiltimagh. The submission was to enable 21 houses in the area that are reliant on private wells to connect to the Uisce Éireann network. The specifics of the application for the community water connection were assessed by the independent expert panel and a recommendation was made. Having considered the panel’s recommendation, the Minister approved funding of €90,865 for the project in October 2019. To date, the Department has paid €51,352 to Mayo County Council for works on this project, including the planning, design and tendering stages. In the case of all projects approved for funding under the multiannual programme, if a local authority finds itself in the position of requiring additional funding for a specific project, an application can be made to the Department at any stage during the project. In such cases, the Department will fully consider the application and will provide a decision and additional funding, if appropriate, without delay and as soon as possible. To date, the Department has not received a request from Mayo County Council for additional funding for the proposed project.

I thank the committee again for the invitation to meet and I am happy to take any questions at the end.

Mr. John Condon

A Chathaoirligh agus a dhaoine uaisle, is mór an onóir dom a bheith anseo libh inniu. I am director of services with Mayo County Council. Among other things, I am responsible for the council's role in water services. I am accompanied by Mr. Michael McDermott, senior executive engineer and Ms Bernadette Burke, executive engineer, who both work in our rural water services department.

From where I sit, this story commenced in July 2018 when the Cleragh community made an application to Mayo County Council for a community water connection. Within about a month, it had been assessed for feasibility and we informed the community that we regarded it to be feasible. In February 2019, we included it in our application for funding under the three-year multiannual rural water programme we were putting together at that time. In October 2020, the Department confirmed it accepted it for funding but did not allocate a specific amount. Nevertheless, it was included in the programme. In February 2020, we were advised by the Department that scheme and a number of other schemes we were promoting could proceed. The next problem, which was unexpected, was that the Covid-19 pandemic occurred, as members will recall, at the beginning of March 2020. That limited our ability to work and interact with communities, such as those in Cleragh. However, we did what we could to make progress and managed to hold a number of meetings with the community around August 2020 to identify the locations of the individual connections where the different houses on the scheme would be connected. This was all essential for the design purposes of the scheme.

We appointed Ryan Hanley consultants as our clients' representative in November 2020. The clients' representative, apart from designing the scheme and everything else, also has to work with Uisce Éireann to get the necessary water connection. A pre-application inquiry was formally submitted to Uisce Éireann in January 2021. Uisce Éireann responded positively that the scheme was feasible in April 2021, subject to a number of conditions. I will refer to two of the conditions briefly. One condition was that we would connect at a certain point that involved a river crossing and that involved a Natura site, so we had to get a Natura impact assessment and design it to cross the river and, because of that, we had to get planning permission. That led to additional costs, which the Department funded and we were appreciative of that. The other condition was that the plant in Kiltimagh would need to be upgraded as there was not enough capacity in the public water supply plant in Kiltimagh to support these additional connections and the demand they would create. The plant in Kiltimagh has been upgraded. The upgrade was concluded around the end of 2023. Apart from being a problem for Cleragh, this was a problem for Mayo County Council as it was affecting our ability to build social houses in Kiltimagh. It was also a problem for some private developers who wished to build houses in Kiltimagh. If there is no water, people will not want to live there or buy the houses. The plant has now been upgraded by Uisce Éireann, and that is very important.

We sought tenders in December 2023 and received two in January 2024, while in November 2023, Ryan Hanley made a formal application for the water connection. That application is the subject of ongoing correspondence between Mayo County Council and Uisce Éireann and it will ultimately determine the conditions under which the scheme will be granted and the charges we will have to pay. That is important at this stage because the actual costs will feed into the overall cost of the project and affect what the householders have to pay. To put it this way, the next steps are that we expect to have a decision on the water connection soon from Uisce Éireann, which will enable us to finalise our costs. When our costs are finalised, we will be able to write to each of the householders to tell them where we are and how much their contribution will be and see whether they wish to proceed on that basis. We will follow up those letters with a meeting with householders so that any concerns or questions they have can be addressed and explained. If they wish to proceed, we will make an application for the specific amount of funding required to the Department. If that is granted, we will go to the construction phase. When it has been constructed, the people of Cleragh would have a sufficient supply of good quality water to meet all their needs.

To date, a total of more than €51,000 has been spent by Mayo County Council on this project. That has covered engineering design costs, ecology, archeology and the Natura impact assessment, which had to be done because of the river crossing. It also has covered the cost of making the planning application, on which we recently received a decision in April 2024 that planning permission will be granted. Assuming no appeal is made, in a few weeks' time we will have an actual grant of permission. As of now, we do not think there will be an appeal and I hope that holds true.

We have not received any contribution from the householders at this stage nor have we requested any. The reason is that until the costs are finalised, we are not in a position to calculate how much their contributions will be or to request them. That is the next step and we are heading towards it as soon as the costs have been finalised. That could enable the project to be completed in a reasonably short timescale from where we are at the moment.

Finally, I take this opportunity to thank Michael McDermott and Bernadette Burke for the enormous work they have done on this project. I thank the Department for its co-operation, funding and support throughout the project and I also acknowledge the role of Uisce Éireann, which we are still dealing with regarding the water connection. Uisce Éireann has delivered in that it has upgraded the plant and without that plant being upgraded, not only would this project not go ahead but social housing and the private development would also be affected. A lot has been achieved in this respect and we hope to bring the whole thing to a conclusion. When we conclude, my colleagues and I will be happy to answer any questions the Cathaoirleach or members may wish to ask.

I now invite Mr. Joyce to make his opening statement.

Mr. Des Joyce

We thank the committee for the invitation to attend today’s discussion on a petition concerning the Kiltimagh water scheme with our colleagues from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and Mayo County Council. I am water treatment asset planning manager at Uisce Éireann and I am joined here today by my colleague Dermot Phelan, connections delivery senior manager.

Uisce Éireann is Ireland’s national publicly owned public water services utility. The Water Services Acts, 2007 to 2022, set out the arrangements for the delivery and oversight of water and wastewater services by Uisce Éireann. To deliver this, we work closely with our economic regulator the Commission for Regulation of Utilities, CRU, and our environmental regulator the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, as well as with the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, local authorities and other bodies.

We are responsible for providing secure, safe and sustainable public water and wastewater services across Ireland. Our remit does not include group water schemes, community water schemes or private wells. If a household or community scheme wishes to seek a connection to existing public water infrastructure, that is facilitated through our connections charging policy as that is approved by our regulator the CER and published on our website.

We note the committee's request to discuss the Kiltimagh water scheme petition, which relates to a request from a rural group not currently served by a public water scheme, the Clearagh community, to make a connection to the Kiltimagh public water scheme. By way of background, Uisce Éireann offers a free pre-connection enquiry service where it will assess the feasibility of a connection and ensure the supporting infrastructure is in place to enable same. We do not have a role in advising or funding community groups. We can only accept connection applications from community schemes if they meet agreed operational, technical and planning standards. We co-operate closely with the respective local authorities and the rural water services section of the Department when there is a request from a community group for a connection to a public water scheme and we work with appointed representatives and contractors to co-ordinate any works required and ensure these works are completed to the necessary standards set out under the Uisce Éireann connections policy. Once this is complete, Uisce Éireann can begin the process of assuming ownership of the water infrastructure asset and carry out the final tie-in connection to its existing public network.

In the case of the Clearagh community connection, in April 2021, in response to a pre-connection enquiry made on behalf of the community by Mayo County Council’s appointed consulting engineers for the project, Ryan Hanley, Uisce Éireann gave notice that a water connection for the proposed scheme was feasible subject to upgrades at the Kiltimagh water treatment plant. In May 2022, Uisce Éireann prioritised the upgrade of the Kiltimagh water treatment plant and commenced works to facilitate additional connections in the Kiltimagh area. Following a ten-month construction period, which included both on-site and off-site works, the upgrade was completed in July 2023. This milestone meant that Uisce Éireann was in a position to accommodate connection applications, including the application from the Clearagh community group.

In November 2023, Uisce Éireann received a connection application from Ryan Hanley on behalf of the Clearagh community. We are working with Ryan Hanley and Mayo County Council to agree the design parameters for works to the non-public element of the network to facilitate and deliver the connection for the Clearagh community, as per the regulated connections policy. Any capital works of this scale take time and Uisce Éireann has prioritised any necessary works within our remit. We understand that securing a connection to the Uisce Éireann mains network is of the utmost importance to residents in Clearagh.

Throughout this process, Uisce Éireann has maintained close contact with the representatives of the community by phone and email and through face-to-face meetings where we have provided regular updates on our upgrade works. We have also engaged with local politicians who have advocated on behalf of the community and provided them with the information requested. We are happy to continue to provide information in relation to our supporting role in delivering same. We thank the committee for the invitation to meet today. We will, of course, take away any wider queries and respond to the committee in follow up where requested.

I thank the Department for making its position clear in all of this. I am sorry for interrupting Mr. Kelly. I really do not know why he is here. As regards Mayo County Council and Uisce Éireann, another committee on which I sit heard from Iarnród Éireann. I asked witnesses from Iarnród Éireann about putting in a spur line from Swords to Dublin Airport. They told me it would take a year to plan it and a year to put it in. This is a major capital project that would be done in two years. The case before us has been going on since 2018. Nobody seems to be taking responsibility for it. Everybody seems to be doing their job. When we look at the presentations, we can see that everybody seems to be doing their job but nobody is taking responsibility for the execution of this. Regarding a project that has been going on since 2018, I would hate to be living in a place where I sought a connection to the water system and we had a fair idea of what it was going to cost but by the time the system was put in place, we had no idea. I think Mr. Condon said the final cost to the families involved is not yet determinable. That seems outrageous at this stage. We are talking about something that has been six years in planning. From what Mr. Joyce tells me, once the project goes ahead, it will be a major project so there will be a fair length of a lead in. We are not talking about water being available in Kiltimagh in a month or two. It looks to me like this is going to be a major project from the perspective of Uisce Éireann. I am not sure who is talking to who or who is ultimately responsible for the delivery of the project. Where is the project manager, who is the project manager and what is the timeline for this? What reassurance can we give the people of Kiltimagh today that they are going to have water in the foreseeable future because six years is too long to wait for a project?

I have just been made aware that Deputy Conway-Walsh needs to be in the Chamber. Does the Senator mind if I let her in before she goes?

I really appreciate this. I am wearing out my lives here. I have to go in to the Dáil and speak on politically exposed persons. I want to briefly look backwards in terms of where we are because it is important to get clarity. We have got some clarity since the witnesses came before us. I am still a bit confused about when the formal application went into Mayo County Council. The committee is saying that it went in eight years ago but Mayo County Council is saying that it went in in 2018. Could we clear that up?

Would there have been an issue if there had been the capacity in the treatment plant from the beginning? Because this was going through the river, how long did the Natura report take? If those two variables were taken out of it, would we be in this situation today or would it have been much more straightforward?

Mr. John Condon

The application we are processing is an application for a community water connection. Traditionally, people formed group schemes to bring water supplies to communities in rural areas. A group scheme is like a company or committee. It is set up. It is a legal entity with its own bank accounts and must do all the things that are done to maintain an entity such as a company. In the multi-annual rural water programme that was brought in some years ago, a new category was brought in - community water connections.

This would be where a relatively small community, such as we have in this case, could come together and have the pipes built that would receive the source. The water would mainly be from the public supply, namely, from Uisce Éireann. This was applied for in July 2018. Prior to that, in 2012, some of the members of the community applied to set up a group water scheme. They did not make much progress with it, so they withdrew that application in 2018 and came in under the new measure, which is probably more suitable for them than the old one.

To put things in context, in County Mayo, we operate 200 group water schemes that serve a population of 40,000 people. We are talking here about 21 to 24 houses, depending on how we count them, which is very small compared to some of the other schemes we have. The other point that might be made known is that in 2018 we received five applications for community water connections. One of them is completed, one under construction, one has been withdrawn and one is not as advanced as the Cleragh community water connection. There are all sorts of reasons for this, including trying to get consultants to design them and contractors to build them and everything else. It is not easy in the present climate.

The second question Deputy Conway-Walsh asked concerned where we would be if there had not been a need to upgrade the plant. The answer is we would be much further advanced and might even be finished. This is not a criticism of anybody, but it was identified back in 2021 that the plant needed to be upgraded for this to happen. That work has now been done. It concluded at the end of last year and this meant it was not realistic to proceed with a formal connection until the end of last year. We made the formal connection in November 2023. Time would have been lost in this regard. Finding the time for the Natura impact assessment, the river crossing aspect and the planning in this regard was done during this time. It would not have taken that long to do it. I do not know if we can say exactly how long it would have taken, but this was not the main thing, however. The need to have the plant upgraded was the main factor in where we are now.

Okay. On the Natura impact assessment report, how long does this add to the time required for a scheme?

Mr. Michael McDermott

There are two aspects to this process. First, there is a need to get the Natura impact statement done. There are only a certain number of consultants in the country who will do this and the issue is to get one who will undertake it and the timeline in this regard. Second, once that report is done, the scheme must be submitted for planning permission, which brings into play the statutory timelines for the planning application process. That would probably have added on six months to the process, because, at a minimum, this includes the time required to get the Natura impact statement done and completed and to get all the other requirements needed for the planning permission application process and then get it submitted. In fairness to the planning department of Mayo County Council, that application went through in the normal time of the two months. It could, however, have been prolonged, but any requests for further information were dealt with expediently and that process happened in two months.

Okay. I have a few other questions. When will we have a decision from Uisce Éireann concerning this connection?

Mr. Dermot Phelan

We have some technical queries outstanding, as was mentioned earlier. We are in regular contact and we expect to have these resolved in the next week. I refer to getting these issues finalised to ensure there is a good water supply for the residents and when we take it into ownership and operate and maintain it. We are giving this type of a timeframe in this context. Now that planning permission has been granted, and I understand as well from the opening statement that the tenders are being finalised, the project is all coming together, so I would expect a mid-May date, that is, in a couple of weeks.

Okay. It will be a couple of weeks. When will we have the costing for the overall scheme to enable us to establish how much the household contribution will be in the context of the overall cost?

Mr. John Condon

We will have it shortly after we receive the water connection decision. We will then add that to all the information we have. The first people to be notified will have to be the householders themselves. This will be before we put the information out into the general domain. Out of respect for those householders, they should get the information before we put it out there.

What costs are taken into account in this context? I refer to when the overall cost is available. There has already been an allocation of funding in this regard. Just over €50,000 has been spent on what has had to be done. What makes up the overall cost of the connection?

Mr. John Condon

First, the €51,000 we have already spent was mainly for design, planning and all these aspects. We will have the cost of the contractor then too, as well as the cost of connection. I do not know if there are any other costs I should be thinking of.

Mr. Michael McDermott

No. There have been the construction costs, the Uisce Éireann costs and the design and engineering costs to date.

Regarding any moneys left over from the original allocation, will those funds be taken into account to reduce the overall cost of the project?

Mr. John Condon

With no disrespect intended, I do not think this is the right question to be asking.

Mr. John Condon

What I mean is that it is not like we were given an amount of money and told to go and build it. We get approval from the Department to proceed. Then we appoint consultants to do the design. As we spend that money, we submit claims to the Department and it pays us.

Mr. John Condon

When the contractor starts constructing the project, we will pay for the work as it progresses. We will then be making claims for that money as well, assuming we get to that stage. What I am saying is that it is not a case of there being an amount of money lying around someplace-----

I think it is important to establish this fact.

Mr. John Condon

No, there is not such an amount of money. We pay as we go and when we need money, we apply for it.

Okay. Turning to the witnesses from the Department, if we get to a situation, where, because of inflation and time and everything else, we have a large amount of money being asked of homeowners, is there funding available within the Department to be able to reduce this amount being charged to them to ensure they are not penalised for the impact of inflation etc? What does the Department have available in this regard?

Mr. Douglas Kelly

We expect to receive an application for some further funding for this application. We have yet to know what this level of further funding will be. When that information comes in, we will turn it around. We do not specifically have funding available to give directly to householders in that manner. We expect to receive an application for additional funding because what was approved in October 2019 is unlikely to cover the outstanding costs of the remainder of the project.

The amount of funding requested from the Department and the amount granted can determine how much the householders end up paying. Is this correct? I am just trying to understand how we can achieve a manageable amount for the people concerned to pay.

Mr. Michael McDermott

I will answer that question. These projects are 85% funded by the Department and 15% by a local contribution. In the earlier session, I think there was a misnomer in respect of there being a connection fee to Irish Water that was being paid for. It is not. It is 85% funded by the Department and 15% of the overall cost comes from a local contribution. The €1,350 mentioned in the previous session is the minimum amount because the amount of funding by the Department in the context of the last programme was €9,000 per household. This was the threshold that it funded too. In the new programme, this amount has been upped to €15,000 per household. Until we know the overall cost, however, we will not know what the 15% of the local contribution will be. This is the case with any project. All our projects are the same in this regard because this is the split of the funding. It is not a specific connection charge; it is a local contribution cost.

On the local contribution, before construction starts, does 100% of this have to be paid or signed up to or what happens in this regard?

Mr. Michael McDermott

Yes, 100% of the contribution must be paid. It was the same with Murrisk because the contract to construct the project was one between Mayo County Council and the contractor. If, for some reason, a certain number of people decide not to pay, that leaves a hole in the funding and Mayo County Council will not have that funding in place, but we will have signed a contract with a contractor who must be paid this amount of money. It was the same situation with the Murrisk project, where 100% of the local contribution had to be collected and-----

Is there any source whatsoever where it is possible to get funding to support vulnerable families or those who genuinely would not have or be able to make the full contribution?

Do the witnesses know of any sources available? In terms of community welfare officers or anything under social protection, is there anything the council is aware of?

Mr. John Condon

No. First, we would not have it because with no disrespect, social welfare is not part of our remit. Whether they have anything or not I do not know but we certainly do not have anything.

Mr. Douglas Kelly

We would be looking to the social protection unit in that regard. As an exceptional need, it certainly would look at it-----

I do not want us to find ourselves in a situation where a small number of people, through no fault of their own, cannot sign up to this and then it holds up the whole scheme. I am trying to find some solutions here. Does anyone here know what will be the duration of the scheme? Once the construction starts, how long will it take before the water is available?

Mr. Michael McDermott

The construction time will probably be between five to six months. There is about 4 km to cover. Once we are given the go-ahead, if we get the go-ahead, there are procurement procedures that we must follow. If the funding is in place, we will have to advise the contractor and give a two-week period of notice for the unsuccessful contractor to appeal. We can appoint a contractor within two weeks of that. There is a month between sending out the successful and unsuccessful letters and being able to appoint a contractor. The time period for the construction will be about four to five months as it is not a huge scheme.

I will finish by asking the witnesses to work together to ensure that the situation in Clare does not continue and that they have water as soon as possible. The onus is on everybody to work together to make that happen, including social protection if that is necessary. I acknowledge the witnesses all agree that this situation cannot continue there. We need to learn from this in terms of co-operation and collaboration between different entities to ensure that in this day and age, everybody has running water.

There are other situations in respect of group water schemes in Mayo as well. While I am here, I will mention the one in Ballycroy. I am aware of houses on the Ballycroy scheme that do not have sufficient water and that are running into a summer without it. I also acknowledge that I have worked with Mayo County Council on Downpatrick and many other schemes, such as Murrisk and as fair is fair, I wish to acknowledge the work of Mr. Condon, Ms Bourke and Mr. McDermott in particular, in trying to find solutions to all of these things. I ask Irish Water to understand the situation that local authorities are in, whether that be in terms of debt write-offs or whatever else. Let us get all of this right, as we have to right it eventually anyway. Let us not be held up by bureaucracy and red tape around this because the people in rural Ireland deserve water as much as anyone else. We need to clear up legacy issues in order for us to be able to move forward. As was referred to earlier on, we cannot have the development of towns and villages, the rural development and community development without having the water schemes. I thank our witnesses for being here today, on a Thursday afternoon. At least we will move forward from here on in. I thank the witnesses for their contributions and I apologise that I have to go to the Dáil now to speak on this issue.

I call Senator Craughwell.

I thank the Cathaoirleach. I want to go back to Mr. Kelly, who has a lot of experience in these situations, for a moment. Is this one of the longest projects he has on his books or are there similar ones scattered around the country?

Mr. Douglas Kelly

We do not have many of this type of timeframe, no but there are multiple reasons as to why this has taken so long.

I do not want to get into the reasons as the answers from all the witnesses have been quite comprehensive. Mr. Kelly and Ms Bourke have come in for great praise from the community as I believe has Mr. McDermott. It is a good thing that they are engaging with members of the community. Perhaps I could ask Mr. Condon and Mayo County Council to engage with the Department of Social Protection and ask if there could be funding available through the community welfare scheme. We were told there are a number of pensioners in the area and significant sums of money being asked of pensioners may be prohibitive. If only 80% of residents sign up, does that mean, as I assume, the project cannot go ahead?

Mr. John Condon

First, we will be happy to check that out. I do not know what the answer will be but we will check that out and see.

I thank Mr. Condon for that.

Mr. John Condon

To go back to the Senator's other question, in this case there are 24 houses. Even if one or two of the owners say they will not do it, that means we will not have enough to proceed, unless we increase the cost further on the remaining houses. If we had, as you might have on another scheme, 600 houses and where 500 houses might be enough to meet the threshold, we would have a bit of leeway. In a small scheme like this, however, we have less room to manoeuvre than we would if there were more people involved. That is why we need to make these people aware of what the actual costs are as soon as we can in order that they know where they stand. They can then decide on what they want to do or whether they think it is worth it. They can decide if they want to proceed or whatever. We will do that as soon as we finalise the figures.

From a council perspective, is there a way of staging the payments? If there is a significant cost involved can it be paid over a period or must it all be paid in one lump sum? Who is responsible for that? Is it Irish Water?

Mr. Michael McDermott

No, the local contribution has to come into the county council because the contract will be signed between the council and the contractor. We have to make all the payments to the contractor. Regarding the Murrisk scheme that Mr. Condon mentioned previously, because of its scale, involving 600 houses, we started collecting the local contribution 18 months before we even got to tender. We allowed payments to be made in stages over that 18 months but if we were to allow that now, it will just delay the contract from starting. We would be pushing the start of the contract out further.

I am sure it is not Mr. McDermott's responsibility, maybe it is the responsibility of a local TD or somebody like that, but maybe a scheme can be worked out with a local credit union for those who would find themselves in hardship by having to meet a large sum of money.

Mr. Michael McDermott

That was put in place for the Murrisk scheme.

That is really good.

Mr. John Condon

That was mentioned by the petitioner earlier as well. They mentioned credit unions.

I accept that everybody in this room is struggling to try to keep things going. The one thing I would say to Irish Water is that things keep coming to us where local authorities are trying to do something and somewhere along the line, the relationship with Irish Water does not seem to gel at a particular time. Should it not be the case that if Irish Water is the primary decision maker in a situation such as this, the moment a project comes up the organisation should put in place a project manager to ensure that it moves as quickly and as smoothly as possible and that it is able to facilitate the local authority in respect of any questions it has or any issues that arise at local level? Also Irish Water should be able to apprise the Department of what is needed as things go along. The Department cannot be watching things like this and the local authorities are busy trying to deliver services. Irish Water's job is to oversee water in the country or at least that was my understanding. I feel that somewhere along the line, there is one key element missing and that is the overall project manager who will deal with all the different questions to get the project up and running. We are talking about it taking six months to get planning and realistically another six months to put the thing in place.

Mr. Des Joyce

We have planning.

Irish Water has planning? So it could deliver in six months if everybody got their act together?

Mr. Des Joyce

Absolutely, yes.

All I can do is thank the witnesses for their time. I am sorry if we sometimes are a bit difficult in the questions that we ask but my heart goes out to these people. I have only been without water the odd day in my life and it is very hard to live without it.

Mr. Michael McDermott

If I could clarify something, I am the project manager for most of these projects. In the last programme we got allocations from the Department for 60 projects covering 70 group water schemes that cover 15,000 households. In the last four or five years, we have had to deal with Covid, Brexit and the war in Ukraine and have tried to manage those 60 projects.

It is not a matter of managing just one project. They all vary in size and valuation but they all take the same amount of time and all have to follow the same process. From dealing with strategic partners to planning, they all have statutory timelines. This particular project has been given as much time as or more time than any one of those other 60 projects. Of those 60 projects, 58 have commenced and are progressing at different stages. In fairness to the Department, we have had to go back. Our initial allocation was €15 million and then another €5 million for Murrisk. At the moment, we are up on €32 million for those 60 projects because we have had to go back so many times looking for additional funding. We have had great co-operation from the Department and Uisce Éireann. It is just the number of projects, the time it takes and the hurdles you come up against sometimes. The environment and environmental legislation are playing a huge part in all these projects. Once upon a time, we never had to do a study or planning for any of these. That is coming more and more into play. We are trying as much as we can to progress all these projects at any one time, but they number 60 and it takes a bit of work.

I am mindful of a solicitor friend of mine who said to me that when he takes on a case, the client sleeps the case, eats the case and wakes up with the case and thinks everybody else involved in it should do exactly the same thing. I understand that 60 projects and 15,000 houses is major. I understand what the witnesses are trying to do. I also understand the people of Kiltimagh and the difficulties they have. Perhaps we could all get together and see delivery in six months. Two crucial things are coming out of this meeting and the community itself should start working on them this evening. One is the issue of cost. Can the witnesses bring the local credit union on board with them should they need to fund individual house connections? The other one is that the construction is not impeded in any way once they get started. After that, there is not a whole lot anybody can do.

As regards the FOI question, Mr. Condon might go back and talk to the council and see if there is any way it can provide a refund. It is outrageous that people would have to make a FOI request in respect of basic questions.

Mr. John Condon

We can check it out but I do not think we got very much money from them. A number of FOIs were mentioned and they were not all made to Mayo County Council. If a charge arises, we have no discretion on that either. The legislation is there as to how we deal with FOIs. We can only work within the rules that have been set out by the Oireachtas but we will check it.

I call Deputy Buckley.

I have been observing most of this meeting. In our job, we listen to two sides of the story and somewhere in the middle is the truth. We are very familiar with this. It is down to communication, unfortunately, whether it is the people of Kiltimagh or anywhere else. We have had issues before with communications with county councils breaking down, memorandums of understanding being signed pre-Uisce Éireann or Irish Water and then everything getting lost.

I will not say too much because many of the previous speakers have said what I was going to say. These committees are not the knocking shop all the time. Sometimes you bring people together so they can explain exactly what went wrong and we can right those wrongs. The witnesses have the commitment between them all now and even the possible timeframe to get this done. They have each said their part, that there will be a cost and there have been gaps but we are going in the right direction. All I ask is that, please God, within 12 months, the people of Kiltimagh will have their own water. It is very difficult. I understand where they are coming from as regards the red tape, the new regulations and the green regulations. They slow down the process, but the communication always has been the barrier between groups.

At a petitions committee meeting a number of years ago, we had five different bodies, five different entities, all working on one weir with five different ideas. Those five groups never sat in a room together and asked, given that they had five separate plans for the exact same weir, could they not sit down together and have one plan between the five of them for the weir.

I ask the witnesses to keep in contact. We will follow this up if we have to do so. I thank them all for their honesty today. The witnesses in the first half of the meeting may want to revisit this. There is a structure on the committee for that. I thank all the witnesses. The discussion has been enlightening. Please God they will have progress on the matter.

Mr. Carney, we cannot let you into this session. You can view it but you cannot take part in it.

Thank you all for coming in and giving your side of what is going on. As was said earlier, to have a community without water in 2024 is not acceptable, as far as I am concerned. Throughout the whole duration of the predicament, what duty of care was shown to the community by the county council, the Department and Uisce Éireann?

Mr. John Condon

I will say on behalf of the county council that the staff in the rural water office - Mr. McDermott, Ms Bourke and their colleagues - were helpful at every stage to the community from the day they were first contacted in 2012 to when they made the current application in 2018. They went out on site during the Covid pandemic to help them to identify the connections and the precautions that had to be taken to try to work in a safe environment under those things. Also, every communication that is received gets a response. Whether it is a response people want is a different thing but they always get a response, which is the best we can do for them at each stage. We-----

I ask you because the petitioner has shown us a string of emails to which they say they did not get responses from across the three bodies. I am just trying to figure out why the emails would not have got replies.

Mr. John Condon

I know there have been many emails and many replies because I have done a lot of the replies myself when I have received the emails. Also, a lot of the FOIs were simply releasing copies of the emails which came in and the responses they got. I would suspect that even most of what they got under FOI they had already received from us by responses to the emails or whatever.

Mr. Douglas Kelly

On behalf of the Department, we got an e-correspondence from the applicants and responded very promptly to that. Apart from that, we have not received anything.

Uisce Éireann?

Mr. Des Joyce

We received quite a sizeable number of inquiries, phone calls and communications from the Clare group and we were happy to reply to those. I do not know if there are any to which we did not reply, but we certainly replied to a huge number. We also facilitated freedom of information requests.

We also had face-to-face meetings with members of the committee to whom we outlined timelines for the completion of the upgrade of the treatment plant and we delivered on those timelines. We have tried to do our best to answer all the questions they have asked.

Mr. Michael McDermott

I met in public with approximately 60 residents at a face-to-face meeting in November. I met them again in February of this year when, at a face-to-face meeting, I gave them a complete update.

In its submission, Mayo County Council stated that in July 2018, the application received from Cleragh community water connection was assessed and the scheme was deemed viable. It took until November 2023 for the connection application to be submitted to Irish Water. Why was there a five-year delay? I know we had Brexit, Covid-19 and all of that but there were two and a half or three years before the pandemic. Why did things not move quicker when a community was without water?

Mr. Michael McDermott

As my colleague, Mr. Condon, pointed out, a pre-application inquiry was submitted in early 2021. The process for a connection application with Uisce Éireann first requires a pre-application inquiry. That is assessed by Uisce Éireann to determine whether a connection is feasible. It comes back to state a connection is feasible under certain conditions. We do not apply for a full application for a connection with Uisce Éireann until we are sure a project is progressing because there is a time period for applications received by Uisce Éireann. Applications only last for 90 days and the connection charges must be paid within that period. In addition, we do not know the full details required to submit a full application to Uisce Éireann until a consultant has been procured and appointed and a design has been done. It is when a design has been completed, tender documents have been sent for tender and it is likely that a contractor will be appointed that we would normally submit a full connection application on any such project. A pre-connection inquiry was submitted in early 2021.

Does Uisce Éireann have a policy that gives priority to communities that are in a situation such as this one? I will give credit to Uisce Éireann and Tipperary County Council for resolving an issue quickly once it came before the committee. Does Uisce Éireann have a policy whereby it prioritises communities such as the one we are talking about over individuals?

Mr. Des Joyce

We are governed by the connections policy. I will ask my colleague, Mr. Phelan, to outline the limitations of what we can and cannot do.

Mr. Dermot Phelan

Our remit does not extend to unsewered areas. We operate under the connection charging policy approved by the Commission for Regulation of Utilities, CRU, in 2019. We implement that policy consistently across the country. That is how we approach all connection applications for people who want to connect. There is no specific scheme for unsewered areas at the moment. It is managed through the rural programme.

As others have said, I thank our guests for coming and for being so honest. We have, however, a community that is stuck without water. I say to the three bodies here that we will be keeping in regular contact with them and with the petitioners. Perhaps in six months, we will see how far this has progressed. I encourage our guests to communicate. It seems to be an awful problem across the country that three different bodies are involved and issues are pushed around in a circle. Communities such as the one in Cleragh are the ones who suffer. It is not just an issue for our guests. Right across the board, we have received petitions about the involvement of two or three different Departments. It does not help communities so we would encourage our guests to communicate with the petitioners, with whom we will keep in constant contact. If need be, we will bring the petitioners back or request that our guests come back to answer for any delays that might occur. I encourage them to work as hard as they can with one another to get the issue resolved for the petitioners.

Sitting suspended at 3.45 p.m. and resumed at 3.49 p.m.
Barr
Roinn