Vol. 503 No. 6
30 Mr. Dukes asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government the measures, if any, he proposes to take to deal with the high incidence of drinking water contamination revealed by the Environmental Protection Agency report on water quality for 1997; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10727/99]
32 Ms Clune asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government the action, if any, he plans to take following the recent publication of the Environmental Protection Agency's report on the quality of drinking water which states that only 92 per cent of public supplies and 64 per cent of group and private water schemes can be considered acceptable; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10871/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 30 and 32 together.
Primary responsibility for the provision of drinking water supplies and for upholding the prescribed quality standards rests with sanitary authorities, under the general supervision of the Environmental Protection Agency. The required standards for drinking water are prescribed in the European Communities (Quality of Water Intended for Human Consumption) Regulations, 1988. These set standards for more than 50 parameters and impose requirements, for example, in relation to sampling frequency and analysis. Exceeding the quality standards does not automatically mean that there is a risk to public health.
The EPA's recently published report on drinking water quality in 1997 indicates that overall quality continues to be satisfactory in public supplies. Apart from coliforms and fluoride, compliance levels were above 98 per cent in 1997 in respect of strictly health related parameters for all supplies. In the case of coliforms and fluoride, the compliance levels were 87 per cent and 91 per cent, respectively, representing a slight improvement on the 1996 position in respect of fluoride and a marginal disimprovement in respect of coliforms.
While non-compliance on health related parameters is unacceptable, the overall results are encouraging, reflecting the major investment in public water supply infrastructure in recent years and the commitment of local authorities to provide a high quality water supply. The report acknowledges that the rate of improvement in water quality has reached, or is rapidly approaching, a plateau and that expectations of further significant improvements may not be warranted in regard to public supplies.
There was a significant improvement in 1997 in the number of group schemes complying with the required standards and a 38 per cent increase in the extent of monitoring of these supplies by local authorities. However, there are no grounds for complacency given that 36 per cent of group schemes recorded exceedances in coliforms. We must continue to address this sector with vigour. In the case of rural water supplies, water quality problems are most acute in group water schemes which are dependent on private sources, many of which are vulnerable to organic pollution. Some 5 per cent of households are served by these privately sourced group schemes.
In response to the findings of the EPA report, I have asked sanitary authorities to ensure that every effort is made to identify and focus on problem aspects of their water supply programmes and to examine all aspects of the operation of treatment plants in the light of the recommendations set out in the report. I have asked for a special report, to be presented before 31 May 1999, from certain authorities in regard to areas where the level of exceedances was high.
A comprehensive range of targeted initiatives together with significantly increased capital resources are being provided under my Department's rural water programme with the objective of improving the quality, reliability and efficiency of rural water supplies. Overall capital expenditure on the programme will exceed £28 million this year, an increase of £7 million on 1998 and £12 million on 1997. A special £3 million allocation has been made available this year to develop solutions to water quality problems which particularly affect privately sourced group schemes. This will be used to fund intensive testing to identify factors influencing water quality; research new technologies for treating small scale supplies and pay for installation and practical pilot testing of new treatment packages.
My Department and local authorities will continue to work in close partnership with the private group scheme sector to ensure water supplies are planned and developed to the best advantage of rural communities. A national rural water monitoring committee was set up last year to monitor the implementation of the rural water programme by local authorities. The committee is also overseeing the development of a model strategic rural water plan, which will form a blueprint for the planning of rural water supplies in the future.
The capital provision for water and sewerage services in my Department's Vote amounts to £275 million this year, an increase of 50 per cent on expenditure in 1998, 70 per cent on 1997 and more than double the expenditure in 1996. Overall, between 1994 and the end of this year, more than £960 million of capital funding will have been invested in water and sewerage services with a strong emphasis on additional water treatment in accordance with the requirements of the drinking water and urban waste water treatment directives. This investment directly addresses the drinking water quality issues raised in the EPA report. It provides for enhanced water supply ser vices and protects the sources from which drinking water is obtained. My Department, the social partners, regional and local authorities and the ESRI have been at one in identifying the water services sector as a major priority for funding under the forthcoming National Development Plan – 2000 to 2006.
A total of 5,500 group water schemes are in operation serving 150,000 people. I am concerned that 36 per cent of the samples taken from those schemes contain excessive levels of coliforms. This could be a serious public health issue, particularly when we read so much about the presence of E-coli 0157. Who is to say that it is not present in these samples? I am also concerned that there is an increased level of coliform contamination, particularly since the Minister said that he expects the quality of water to plateau and that we will not see the significant improvements which we have seen in recent years. The level of coliform exceedances is increasing.
How does he propose to address the fact that coliform contamination in public water supplies is alarming given that we will not see further significant improvements in water quality? Ireland is being taken to task by the European Commission over its failure to adhere to the EU water quality directive. How will this impinge on the EPA quality directive?
The Deputy is making the same mistake as other people in Cork, based on newspaper reports. I have tried to correct the impression created by The Examiner on a number of occasions and am delighted to have the opportunity again to state that the 36 per cent of schemes referred to in the EPA report does not relate to the 5,500 group water schemes in place. It refers to 5 per cent of group schemes which have private water sources rather than public ones. Many group water schemes tap into public water supplies. All the indications we have, which were confirmed in the EPA report, show high levels of compliance by public water schemes.
However, whether the figure is 5 per cent or more, any coliform exceedances are unacceptable. I agree with the Deputy that we should endeavour to ensure that all water supplied to group water schemes is top quality and all water which people get from such schemes, whether from private or public sources, should be top quality. That is what we are trying to do in the programme that I outlined.
The EU directive is the subject of a separate question. However, the EU is pursuing us in regard to group water schemes. Our defence is that the directive does not and should not apply to such schemes.
It should.
However, we are making it clear to the EU that through the rural water pro gramme, we are endeavouring to ensure that there is nothing but top quality water.
Does it apply to the quality of drinking water?
It applies to public supplies.
Rightly so.
The EU is attempting to apply this to private supplies. If they want to change the directive we will not oppose them but I do not think one can change the goal posts in the middle of the game. If it is changed to private water supplies that would mean the Department and local authorities would be responsible for the quality of water in every well, which has huge implications.
Someone has to be responsible for it.
There is such a thing as personal responsibility, as with litter, which we discussed earlier.
One has to get permission for the schemes.
I accept we should endeavour to ensure all group water supplies are, and all drinking water is, of top quality.
While Deputy Dukes' question was ruled out for the reasons stated, its subject matter may be raised under this question as it is related.
I am glad that my question, although disallowed, still holds water. Is the Minister satisfied that the sampling frequency and the analyses carried out are properly in conformity with the provisions of EU directives? He should not try to minimise the problem relating to group water supplies because the position as revealed in the EPA report is that—
A question, please.
Of the 1,880 samples which were taken from group water supplies, 36 per cent were unfit for consumption, the vast majority because they exceeded the coliform content limit, which is zero. Does the Minister not agree we should worry about that? Will he also desist from giving the impression that these are merely private wells? They were examined as a separate category and it was found—
I would prefer if the Deputy did not quote, it is not allowed during Question Time. He should ask the Minister a simple question.
I am trying to tell the Minister he is wrong in attributing a different meaning to the material I am quoting. One in eight of the few samples of public water supplies exceeded the legal limits. In the case of group water supplies and private supplies, what measures are now being taken to reach the targets of zero coliform and zero fluoride, set down in 1988, in the schemes which are now contaminated?
The Deputy and I seem to have great difficulty making ourselves clear to one another during Question Time, although we do not have that difficulty at other times. I am neither minimising nor attempting to minimise any pollution which occurs in any water supply, public or private. I am not trying to pretend that the 36 per cent of cases, which we mentioned, were in private wells – they were in group water schemes. The reference to private wells was incidental to another question. I am always careful when answering questions from Deputy Dukes because I am wary of telling him all the things we are doing and the extra money we are providing – an increase of 100 per cent for water services since 1996, which we hope to increase substantially again. If the Deputy wants me to go through everything we have done and are doing, including the national water monitoring committee—
No, do not do that.
I did not ask the Minister about that.
—the strategic rural water plans, the partnership with the private sector—
In the case of a group water supply scheme which is found to be contaminated by faecal coliforms, what action is taken to clean it up?
As the Deputy knows, in a private water scheme it is up to the trustees of that scheme to take whatever action is necessary to ensure the water is fit for human consumption.
Who requires them to do that?
Last year, under our partnership with the private group water sector, we paid £100,000 to the national federation of group water schemes. We increased the sum paid to £250,000 this year to allow the federation, in partnership with the Department, to create awareness of water quality issues and to inform group water schemes of best practice in the operation and management of the schemes. Under the EU technical assistance programme we have provided five training centres with associated course material for staff of local authorities and group water schemes. We are also providing specialist training programmes. This is in addition to the money we are providing to upgrade water and water services.
Where are the results published of the samples taken to test water quality? Where may a member of the public discover whether his water scheme or public supply has been tested for water quality and the results of those tests? Will the Minister confirm to the House that the EU Commission has formally notified the Government that it intends to take this country to court because of its failure to comply with the EU Water Quality Directive and has rejected the Government's contention that group water schemes are outside the remit of that directive, and that Ireland faces embarrassing court action from the EU because of its failure to implement the directive?
The levels in water of three elements – chlorine, fluorine and aluminium – are in excess of permitted limits, and there have been significant increases in the levels of those elements. What does the Minister propose to do to reduce those levels?
In response to Deputy Gilmore's question about results, the local authorities monitor and take samples on behalf of the EPA. I am not sure – I will check for the Deputy – whether the local authorities retain that data for public information purposes; they are available from the EPA. I responded to the question about the EU's action. That is ongoing and no final decision has been made about it. We have stated our case and the EU has stated its case.
In response to Deputy Clune, the information I have to hand is that some of the health fears relating to aluminium in water have been greatly exaggerated. There is no conclusive link between the levels of those elements and risk to health. This is the subject of a later question and the Deputy may wish to put down another question on foot of that response. Some people who are against fluoridation have raised scares about it. In general terms, the experience is that fluoridation of water is a benefit rather than a health risk.
Not true.
Where is the Minister's evidence?
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
