JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT, CULTURE AND THE GAELTACHT debate -
Tuesday, 25 Oct 2011

Supply, Storage and Disposal of Water: Discussion (Resumed)

Chairman

I welcome from Trinity College, Dublin, Dr. Paul Johnston, department of civil, structural and environment engineering, and Dr. Laurence Gill, head of civil engineering; from the Environmental Protection Agency, Mr. Dara Lynott, acting director general, and Mr. Gerard O'Leary, programme manager, environmental enforcement; from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, Mr. Mark Griffin, assistant secretary, water and planning division, Ms Maria Graham, principal officer, water services investment programme, and Mr. Gerry Galvin, principal adviser, water services. I thank them for attending.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give to the committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they do not criticise or make charges against a person, persons or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they do not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

We are considering three related issues under the heading of water provision, namely, providing an efficient infrastructure, alternative sources of supply and cost-effective administration. Given current weather conditions, it is hard to believe there is a shortage of water in Ireland, but we are in need of a supply of useful water on a continual basis throughout the year. Therefore, I am delighted that the officials from the Department and the EPA are present. Given the current financial restraints, I am interested to hear what plans are in place to improve and maintain infrastructure and supply. I would also like the Department to comment on the value for money review of the water services investment programme 2007-09.

Also present are Dr. Johnston and Dr. Gill, engineering experts from Trinity College, Dublin which is currently hosting an exhibition on the future of water provision in its Science Gallery. Therefore, their appearance is timely. I am very interested in hearing their views and encourage members to visit the exhibition. I also ask Trinity College to forward any relevant documentation on the exhibition to the committee.

Dr. Paul Johnston

I thank the Chairman for inviting us. I preface our remarks by noting that, as a group at Trinity College, Dublin, we have long experience in hydrology and that it is the hydrological end of the matter with which we are dealing. Dr. Bruce Misstear deals with the issue of groundwater, while Dr. Laurence Gill deals with the issue of wastewater, in particular, among other aspects of hydrology. Having spent over 30 years in NUI Galway and Trinity College, Dublin, and before that in the United Kingdom, like my colleagues, I have worked with many of the agencies involved, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and the Geological Survey of Ireland. With that background, I will focus on the way we view the development of alternative sources of supply of water based mainly on our experience. I have prepared a few slides and while I am unsure whether everyone can see them from a distance, some members have screens on their tables. I acknowledge it is a little difficult.

As the Chairman rightly noted, our visit today may be apropos of what happened yesterday in particular. While there has been much talk in the press in recent years about shortages of water and hence my opening diagram, in reality, as events yesterday emphasised, we are anything but short of water. The water supply problem in Ireland is anything but a shortage and this is one issue I wish to mention briefly. We have plenty of water and by any international standards with regard to supply and consumption, we certainly are not in the area of shortage. As was evident yesterday, the result of too much water in the wrong place at the wrong time is flooding. We have had plenty of that in recent years and there is now quite a lot of evidence to indicate that an increase in rainfall is one of the causes.

For the benefit of those members who cannot see the presentation in detail, I wish to point out something that is obvious but about which one sometimes tends to forget when discussing alternative supplies for water or its provision. The origin of all our water supplies is in fact rainfall, as indeed is the origin of our floods. Moreover, the variation in rainfall across the country is pretty stark, as members can see from the standard rainfall map on display. The real problem of water supply in Ireland is of course not the lack of water but the location of the demand centres with regard to the supply. While members may not be able to see it, the top part of the slide on display simply considers our water supply using the international methods of simply looking at the rainfall minus the evapotranspiration, which gives one a net flow. One characteristic of the Irish condition is that the residence time, that is, the time spent by the water on the ground or in the ground and in the rivers, is relatively short. In other words, the water runs off relatively quickly. Therefore, when one considers the water supply problem, one invariably must deal with some measure of storage to control that water supply. In some cases, sufficient storage may already be there, such as in groundwater or, in the context of scale, in the Shannon. However, the two diagrams on display show an idea of the water supply which, in terms of the standard measurement of water, shows that our net supply, that is, net of evapotranspiration, is anywhere from 300 millimetres to more than 1,000 millimetres per year. If one does one's simple sums in area, one will see that this is a lot of water.

One issue with regard to the floods we have been seeing in the last few days is that their origin is in part at least due to shifts in our rainfall regime. I am not necessarily talking about climate warming or climate change but simply noting that observational records from the Phoenix Park and Valentia show, as we discovered back in the 1990s when looking at the floods in south County Galway, that the rainfall regime began to shift in the 1970s or thereabouts and this continues today. The change in rainfall since then, depending on the measures one adopts, is an increase of approximately 10%. One must consider the detail in this regard. Members can see how most of the nice colours on the diagram are rising, which means that in terms of the long-term rainfall averages, the rainfall regime is increasing. Therefore, in short, our water supply problems are in essence decreasing, except for the fact that much of it runs off very quickly.

I apologise for the appearance of this slide but I had thought screens would be more available to members. However, in the context of water supply in Ireland, the strategy is to move the water supply to those places in which there are shortages. One thing one can say about water is it is the truly renewable source. The suggestions that sometimes have been floated in the press to the effect that we are running out of water or have reached peak water supply simply do not hold up because one important aspect of water is that it will be discharged back into the hydrological cycle. This is the second argument I intend to make to members, namely, the management of water and its provision should incorporate, at the same time and by the same bodies, the disposal of water. This is because it is part of the hydrological cycle and most of the water we supply to people winds up back in the ground or back in the river system in one way or another, even though it may also discharge to the sea. In other words, we are not running out of water but it is merely a question of deploying the water to the places where it is needed and, second, to manage it in a sustainable fashion, that is, to manage it as a whole cycle.

Much of what is outlined in the second part of the slide on display is to suggest that groundwater is an alternative. This is one of the issues pertaining to the Shannon abstraction scheme, which I will mention in passing. The water supply to the proposed Shannon abstraction scheme only amounts to approximately 28 millimetres per year. If one considers this amount in the context of the actual rainfall falling on the catchment concerned, one is talking about less than 6% of that. Clearly, the water varies in supply over the period of a year and one also must carefully consider the ecological needs for that water in the Shannon. That apart, however, once one provides storage, one has more than enough water in terms of interbasin transfer.

As an alternative, the slide on display has a picture of groundwater supply in the country and the abstractions appear on the right-hand side. Groundwater still constitutes between 25% to 30%, depending on whether one includes private water supplies, of supply to the country. On the other hand, groundwater is relatively short-lived. If one looks at the water balance in many of our catchments, one finds the groundwater more or less empties on an annual basis and of course is replenished at the same time. In other words, unlike many other countries, the geology in Ireland implies that if one takes groundwater, one effectively is intercepting flow that might otherwise have gone to the rivers. Consequently, it should not really be considered as an alternative. Certainly, it is part of the mix of water supply that should be used where we need to satisfy the demand centres. The picture on display shows that in most cases, the groundwater discharge is less than 200 millimetres per year, of which only a portion is accessible at any one point. Groundwater is a highly valuable supplement and is part of the water supply scheme but should be considered as part of the integrated whole. There is a huge discrepancy in the way in which local authorities, as water supply agencies, actually consider groundwater and water supply. The next graph has counties along the bottom and the rate of abstraction from groundwater running up the side. Without seeing the detail, members can see that some counties have really latched onto groundwater as a supply, while others have practically ignored it. One point that can be made is that while groundwater may be limited in some respects, it is nevertheless ubiquitous. It is everywhere and the entire country is designated as an aquifer of different levels.

The strategy for managing water supply and alternatives for water supply should take account of the entire hydrological cycle. On the next slide, members can see, even from a distance, the areas of green and in particular the areas of red, which show groundwater bodies that are at risk. The red areas are at risk of over-abstraction and comprise an absolutely tiny portion of the whole. In other words, this confirms that groundwater can be used as an integrated resource for water supply. Finally, I refer to the implications of what I have just said on the strategy for water management in Ireland. To our way of thinking it cries out for an integrated management scheme. It is the way most countries have gone for many years in some cases - that is to manage the water cycle as an integrated whole. I suggest, as others have suggested, that we should consider introducing a national water authority. Particularly with my colleagues from the EPA present, I stress that it is important to separate the role of regulation and protection, which is a national approach, from the role of water supply and disposal. The same authority, albeit regionalised perhaps in the river basin districts that are already at least nominally in place, is an ideal vehicle on which to run water supply and sanitation. Water is not a respecter of boundaries and therefore it should be managed as a national resource to facilitate the issue of inter-basin transfer which we sometimes have to make.

It is often seen as a peculiarity of the Irish situation that part of that water supply governance is water monitoring and hydrological monitoring in which the EPA plays a strong role. For historical reasons, other agencies such as the OPW and the Geological Survey of Ireland manage water monitoring. This makes no sense when considered objectively. Even though we work very well with all of those and there is very good collaboration between the agencies, as a national resource, the monitoring and running should happen at a regionalised or national control level. I give that as an independent view as opposed to on behalf of an agency or anything else.

Mr. Dara Lynott

I thank the members for inviting the Environmental Protection Agency to assist in developing the committee's views on water provision in Ireland. I am joined by Mr. Gerard O'Leary, programme manager for the office of environmental enforcement within the EPA. At the end of this opening statement, we will be happy to answer any questions members might have.

As members are aware, the EPA is an independent statutory body, established in 1993 under the Environmental Protection Agency Act. It has a wide range of responsibilities, including licensing of large scale industrial and waste facilities, monitoring and reporting on the state of the environment, overseeing local authorities' activities in environmental protection, and co-ordinating environmental research in Ireland. We also do considerable work on promoting resource efficiency and regulating Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions. The work of the EPA is carried out by its four offices: office of environmental enforcement; office of climate, licensing and resource use; office of environmental assessment; and office of communications and corporate services.

The EPA has a number of specific and defined roles on water these are as follows. Ensuring drinking water quality is one of our primary roles. The EPA is the supervisory authority over the 34 local authorities which collectively manage almost 900 public water supplies. This statutory obligation is set out in regulations that were introduced in 2007. Prior to 2007 the EPA had a reporting role but no enforcement role. We produce an annual report on drinking water quality in Ireland, which is due to be published in the coming weeks.

We have a role in strategic environmental assessment. For major projects, the EPA under the strategic environmental assessment regulations reports into and assesses a number of these plans with regard to environmental assessment and other related matters. We do not approve or enforce these plans, but we have significant input into them.

Hydrometric monitoring data were mentioned earlier. The EPA is the lead agency in providing low and medium-flow hydrometric data to local authorities and consultants to assist in their application for authorisation for developments, such as sewerage works and water abstractions. This is slightly different from the OPW's role which is to monitor high flows, flood flows and so on. The EPA is also the lead agency in collecting and analysing groundwater level data. These data are collected and provided to local authorities so that they can carry out functions such as: monitor existing drinking water abstractions for their quality; plan and design future sustainable drinking water abstractions; assess the risk of drought to water supplies; assess the ecological impacts of abstractions; and evaluate the potential impact of climate change.

The statutory role of the EPA does not include the strategic planning of water resources in Ireland; the quantification of water volumes available or lost; water abstraction licensing; environmental impact assessment of water schemes; or regulation of the cost to consumers for drinking water.

Some 88% of the population obtains its drinking water from sources treated by a local authority and 6% of the population receives its drinking water from sources treated by private individuals or groups, known as private group water schemes. The remainder are exempt because they do not supply water as part of a public or commercial service. As a country we are heavily reliant on surface water for our drinking water with 82% coming from that source and the remainder from groundwater and springs. This level of reliance on surface water is unique in Europe as is the number of water supplies we have. There are 952 water supplies in Ireland, which far exceeds the number of supplies in most other European countries. The majority of these supplies are small, catering for fewer than 5,000 people. It is worth noting that the quality of our larger supplies, those catering for more than 5,000 people, compares well with drinking water quality in other EU countries.

We will publish our next national drinking-water report in a few weeks and would be happy to come back and give the committee more detail on that. This will show further positive outcomes for drinking water quality since the EPA took on responsibility in 2007. The report will include an assessment of the safety and security of drinking water supplies against the relevant quality standards and an overview of enforcement activities undertaken by the EPA's office of environmental enforcement. The report is based upon the results of 240,000 monitoring tests carried out on 952 public water supplies, 830 public group water schemes, 588 private group water schemes and 888 small private supplies. It is a massive exercise to get that number of samples assessed every year and produce the report.

The focus of the EPA has been to work towards a safe and secure drinking water supply. We do this by working with local authorities, the Department and the HSE to assess the risk; manage the risk; communicate those risks; upskill operators and caretakers to manage those plants well, as discussed by the committee in recent weeks; and conserve water. As part of that work we have developed a remedial action list, a list of supplies where remedial action or management action is required to ensure compliance with the requirements of the drinking water standards. This list is called the "remedial action list for public drinking water supplies" and is published on our website. Its purpose is to focus attention on resolving any deficiencies in public water supplies and to ensure that local authorities, which are in the main the water service authorities, prepare and implement an action programme for each public water supply on the list.

The list was first prepared by the EPA in 2008 and included 339 public water supplies that required local authority examination from source to consumer to determine whether replacements or upgrades were needed. Since then, 49% of supplies on the original list have been removed from the list because the necessary remedial actions have been completed. The EPA expects that remedial works will be complete in a further 100 supplies by the end of 2011, meaning that 80% of supplies on the original remedial action list are scheduled for completion by the end of 2011.

The EPA has advocated a safe and secure approach to drinking water to achieve the goal of clean and wholesome water. The hand-out includes a diagram that puts forward this concept, which is quite clear. We are asking all the local authorities to characterise all the risk associated with their supply from catchment where the water is collected right through to the tap where the water is extracted. This water safety plan approach is advocated by the World Health Organization. The first water safety plan was completed by Galway City Council in 2010. The goal for the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, is for every major water supplier in the country to have such a plan in place.

Clean drinking water is vital to sustain our health and well-being and is relied upon by those involved in the services and manufacturing and tourism industries. There is a need for sustained investment in infrastructure to continue the improvements reported in recent years in the quality of drinking water. Sustained investment in environmental infrastructure to deliver clean drinking water during these tough economic times will provide the platform for sustainable development into the future. I hope I have given the committee an overview of the EPA's role in the regulation of drinking water. I am happy to answer any questions the committee members may have for me.

Chairman

Did Mr. Lynott indicate Mr. O'Leary would be attending as well?

Mr. Dara Lynott

I did but he will not be making an opening statement.

Chairman

I apologise. As my father says there is no point in being foolish unless one can show it at least once every day.

I invite Mr. Mark Griffin, assistant secretary, water and planning division, Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, to make his opening statement to the committee.

Mr. Mark Griffin

I am joined by my colleagues; Ms. Maria Graham, principal officer, water services section, and Mr. Gerry Galvin, principal adviser at the Department's water inspectorate.

I know the committee has heard from other sectoral groups over recent weeks and is aware of the headline figures for Ireland's water services. Ireland has a very diverse water supply system with more than 950 public water supplies producing in excess of 1,600 million litres of water daily through a network of 25,000 km of pipes. EPA data indicate 85% of the population is connected to public water supplies and 8% is served by group water schemes covered by the drinking water regulations. In overall terms, it is estimated there are more than 5,000 group water schemes throughout the country. Water services authorities are also responsible, either directly or indirectly, for waste water provision in some 480 agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 500 and more than 500 further agglomerations with population equivalents of less than 500.

The latest report on water quality in Ireland by the EPA, Water Quality in Ireland 2007 to 2009, has found evidence of improvements in water quality. In comparison with other EU member states, Ireland has better than average water quality but continued improvements across a range of sectors are needed if Ireland is to achieve water quality targets for 2015 and 2021 as required by the water framework directive. Achieving these goals and managing this diverse and dynamic sector effectively requires a partnership between the Department, local authorities as water services authorities, the group water sector as water providers and the EPA, as the environmental regulator for the sector.

The Department, acting on behalf of the Minister, has overall responsibility for facilitating the provision of water services and infrastructure. It does this by the setting of policy, planning and supervising the investment programme and overseeing the local authorities in the performance of their functions. The Department also has responsibility for managing the water services capital investment programmes.

The Water Services Act 2007 provides a modern and comprehensive legislative framework for the delivery of water services, consolidating more than a century of legislation relating to water and waste water services. This Act sets out the governing functions, standards, obligations and practices in planning, management and delivery of water services. In addition, key statutory provisions in the Act and in related regulations create supervisory and enforcement roles for the local authorities and the EPA with regard to both the protection of drinking water and the supervision of waste water treatment and discharge.

The overall strategy of investment in water services is to ensure the timing and scale of investment facilitates economic and other development, achieves compliance with statutory requirements and promotes environmental sustainability objectives. The focus of investment over recent years has been on investing to ensure compliance with the European directives on both drinking water standards and urban waste water discharges as well as improving water supply to keep pace with population and economic needs.

In excess of €5 billion in Exchequer resources was invested between 2000 and 2010 in water services infrastructure. This investment has been provided through the multi-annual water services investment programme for major public schemes and the annual allocations under the rural water programme targeted at the group water sector and smaller public schemes. This funding has been complemented by local authorities' own resources to bring the total spending to more than €6 billion between 2000 and 2010.

At the beginning of the decade, there were two paramount challenges for the water services sector which influenced investment decisions. The first challenge was addressing drinking water quality issues on a number of supplies, predominantly in the group water sector, where there were unacceptably high incidences of E. coli. As a result, the European Court of Justice found Ireland in breach of its obligations under the EU drinking water directive in 2002. The second major challenge was to address the lack of secondary waste water treatment in many areas, including many towns and major cities.

The investment over the past decade, almost two thirds of which was on waste water infrastructure, has been important in meeting demand from households and businesses for improved services and additional capacity, improving security of supply, improving the quality of water and providing for water management systems as part of the early stage investment in water conservation. Data provided by other contributors to the committee have highlighted the important outcomes from this investment.

Almost 550 major public water and waste water contracts and schemes were completed between 2000 and 2010 under the water services investment programme. Secondary waste water treatment capacity increased to levels equivalent to needs of a population of in excess of 3.9 million in that period. Water supply treatment capacity increased by a level equivalent to the needs of a population of almost 1.4 million over the same period. Compliance with the waste water treatment directive on secondary treatment stood at 92% by the end of 2009 compared with 25% in 2000. Substantial improvements in compliance with drinking water standards, especially with E. coli, in the group water sector have been reported by the EPA.

The positive outcomes from the investment through the programme were outlined in its value for money review published earlier this year. This review acknowledges the water services investment programme has been effective in delivering its objectives and that these objectives continue to be legitimate. Exchequer investment in water services continues at a high level despite the economic challenges, with €435 million provided this year. As in previous years, the majority of the funding is channelled through the multi-annual water services investment programme.

A comprehensive review of the programme was undertaken in 2009, in light of changed economic circumstances. Several changes were made to the programme to focus on key environmental and economic priorities, aligning expectations on delivery with available resources and ensuring investment reflected the needs identified in the emerging river basin management plans. Programme priorities were set in consultation with the County and City Managers Association. The focus of the programme is on water conservation; environmental and public health objectives, particularly works required to respond to judgments of the European Court of Justice; issues arising from EPA reports; priorities set in the first round of river basin management plans; and economic objectives, including works to support the development of hubs and gateways and employment creation.

All projects which had not substantially advanced under the previous programme were measured against these priorities. Key inputs to the development of the programme were the needs assessments by local authorities, consultations with the EPA, with a particular emphasis on developing a risk-based approach to investment decisions, and work by Forfás on the identifying the needs of enterprise. The resulting programme for 2010 to 2012 has been acknowledged as the most evidence-based to date. Investment under the programme directly supports up to 4,000 jobs in the construction sector and will support many additional indirect jobs in manufacturing, operating and maintaining new infrastructure post completion.

The water framework directive brings a new perspective to water services management by using a river basin catchment approach. Meeting the challenges of the directive will require continued high levels of investment. The first set of river basin management plans required under the directive were completed in 2010 and identified significant additional investment in waste water infrastructure to address water quality issues in catchments and protect drinking water resources.

These additional investments were included in the Water Services Investment Programme 2010-2012.

Other challenges from an investment perspective include the need to address high levels of water not accounted for in our water supply systems. This is a serious concern, with water not accounted for averaging 41% nationally. Tackling leaks will continue to require prioritisation. Approximately €130 million in Exchequer funding was provided to authorities between the launch of the national water conservation programme in 2003 and 2009, with most of the effort over that period focussed on leak detection, district metering and the development of mains rehabilitation strategies. The Water Services Investment Programme 2010-2012 envisages that contracts to the value of more than €300 million will commence during the programme period with the emphasis now on rehabilitation of defective water mains.

Water services investment is an important enabler of economic development. The planning and implementation of some very large infrastructure projects to address future demographic trends and enterprise needs will be important components of investment over the next decade. As in any capital programme, asset maintenance and replacement will be an ongoing requirement to ensure the integrity of our infrastructure.

Funding the operational costs of water services is also a significant demand on local authority and Exchequer resources. Operational costs have been rising in recent years due to a combination of the increased investment in infrastructure, the costs associated with more stringent environmental requirements and increased energy costs. Expenditure in 2010 on operational costs was approximately €715 million.

The present funding model for water services comprises three main sources of revenue, namely, the Exchequer, local authorities' own resources and income from charging the non-domestic sector. Constraints on State revenue and the fall off in development levies, coupled with rising operational costs and continued capital investment requirements pose a significant challenge for financing of the sector.

The emphasis must be on developing the right mix of funding streams for the programme leading to a sustainable and flexible funding model for the future. In this regard, as the committee is aware, the programme for Government and the memorandum of understanding agreed between the State and the troika provide for the introduction of water charges.

The programme for Government also provides for the establishment of a new State-owned national water company to take over responsibility for managing and supervising investment in water services infrastructure. The memorandum of understanding between Ireland and the troika commits Ireland to undertaking an independent assessment of the establishment of such a company. Work on this assessment is under way. The assessment is examining the optimal organisational structures for Irish water, including its proposed powers and responsibilities, and will consider in detail the legal, financial and organisational structures together with an implementation timetable. It is intended that the outcome of the assessment will be considered by Government before the end of the year.

Over the past decade there has been a radical transformation of the sector in terms of the legislative framework, the development of the EPA's role in supervision of the sector and investment in the infrastructure. Water services investment has accounted for close to 6% of the public capital programme over the past decade. This investment has allowed the sector to meet the needs of a growing population and the demands of the economy, including the needs of water hungry industries in the pharmaceutical and technology sectors which are performing well at this time of economic difficulty.

Water services is a dynamic sector, with policy evolving to address the challenges ahead for the coming decade, including the need for continued high levels of investment in water and waste water infrastructure. The Department is working with all of the actors involved, local authorities and the EPA to ensure these challenges can be met in the most efficient and effective manner possible, and in a manner that ensures best service for the consumer and citizen.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I thank the three delegations for their very detailed presentations. Is the Department happy that the level of investment in conservation is appropriate? Do the EPA and the engineering department of Trinity College believe a more aggressive approach to water conservation would negate the apparent requirement to move towards a more detailed method of collecting water to provide for the growing needs of Dublin? All of the delegates set out their knowledge of hydrology, regulation and departmental policy but we are here to discuss the possible need for Dublin City Council to drain the Shannon to provide for the needs of a growing Dublin city. In this context I ask the delegates to address the issue of conservation and whether they believe it is helpful. I ask them to help me with the issue they raised with regard to groundwater. Will they clarify whether capacity exists to examine another method of extracting water from a groundwater source? Will they also address the matter of desalination?

I liked what the delegation from Department stated about looking at the life cycle of water and processing waste water and sewage. Is Mr. Griffin happy with the current level of investment in the disposal of raw sewage? Will he comment on a fact of which we are all aware, namely, that many small villages still pump raw sewage into tributaries of main rivers? In the current climate is this acceptable?

I recognise the level of investment made throughout the country for larger towns. This is important and the Department has retained the right to object to development in certain areas if there is not an appropriate level of treatment for waste water. However, it remains a fact that we have very stringent rules. Farmers are severely curtailed and will be sent to jail if they breach guidelines with regard to the nitrates directive. Yet, what could be considered local authorities can accept, under the guidance of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, that small villages can pump raw sewage into our rivers.

Mr. Mark Griffin

We can bundle together the questions to the Department. With regard to water conservation, Ireland's structure is made up of a relatively small number of large cities and a widely dispersed population. In our presentation we mentioned that the water distribution network is approximately 25,000 km and leakage will be a problem. Committee members will be aware of the figures. Leakage levels are approximately 41% on average but are much higher in some local authorities areas and much lower in others. We have quite an old network, with cast iron water mains in older areas dating from the 19th century. Some areas have very high operating pressures and leakage control policies which are somewhat reactive rather than planned.

Even in well-run water utilities the ideal levels of leakage are between 10% and 30%. We have stated that anything up to 20% would be an acceptable target to be achieved over time. We have invested quite significantly in the past decade in the first two phases of water conservation. Phases one and two deal with water management systems and active leakage control. Phase three will involve mains rehabilitation. We spent approximately €160 million on the first two phases and a comprehensive programme is in place under the Water Services Investment Programme 2010-2012. Water conservation is a strong priority with €320 million targeted at mains rehabilitation contracts. The City and County Managers' Association, CCMA, came before the committee and probably told it the vast majority of local authorities has completed its mains rehabilitation strategy. We have had a much higher level of activity in terms of contract approval in 2011 and we are certainly heading in the right direction.

As a policy we have more or less taken the view in recasting the programme for 2010 to 2012 that new water supply will not be permitted unless local authorities have done the basic work on developing their mains rehabilitation strategies and undertaken priority mains rehabilitation replacement. We are heading in the right direction although it has not gone as fast as I would have liked and we have quite a considerable way to go in terms of reducing the leakage levels to acceptable standards. I ask Mr. Galvin to deal with the choices emerging in respect of the Dublin situation and the question of desalinisation, which was considered as part of the overall assessment of the Dublin project.

Mr. Gerry Galvin

While the national average for leakage is 41%, Dublin has the lowest level of leakage in the country, at 28%, because it began looking at leakage levels and mains rehabilitation in the late 1990s.  The leakage level is the result of a sustained effort to find and fix leaks and the commencement of the mains replacement and rehabilitation project over the past three or four years.  This is significant in that it forms part of the longer term strategy for water supply in Dublin.  The longer term objective is not solely taking water from the Shannon but involves further reducing leakage in the greater Dublin area by investing in mains replacement and leakage reduction.

The desalination option was investigated but, as Dr. Johnson indicated earlier, rainfall and water resources are not issues for Ireland. Desalination has only been used abroad in areas which experienced water scarcity, such as parts of Spain, Cyprus and the Middle East. Desalination is not without its own environmental issues. It is a heavy consumer of energy and produces a large carbon footprint. Issues also arise regarding disposal of the brine, that is the concentrated salt that is removed from the water, in the sea environment. It is also much more expensive in terms of capital costs and, particularly, operating costs because of its high level of energy consumption.

Mr. Mark Griffin

Before I ask the EPA to respond to the question on the level of investment in wastewater disposal, I draw the committee's attention to the fact that 50% of the investment agreed in the programme for the period 2010-12 is for wastewater schemes. Over the past decade the emphasis has been on wastewater disposal for the larger agglomerations because we were required to comply with the urban wastewater treatment directive. We are still in hot water with the European Commission in regard to aspects of the directive which were not addressed in sufficient time. Given the choices the Government must make between the various capital programmes, whether water, housing or schools and hospitals building programmes, the availability of resources for water services has trended downwards over several years. The Government continues to recognise the critical nature of water services and the need to provide Exchequer support.

The priorities we have set out in the water services investment programme include water conservation, the need to address judgments by the European Court of Justice and the remedial action list. Economic objectives include balanced regional development and supporting the sectors that create employment.

The work done to complete the river basin management plans at the end of 2009 and early 2010 included a comprehensive list of wastewater treatment infrastructure required to address some of the point discharges identified in the plans. We worked closely with the EPA to ensure the work was reflected in the programme for 2010-12. I ask the EPA to speak about the wastewater discharge authorisation certification process because it is relevant to the issues raised by Deputy Dooley.

Mr. Dara Lynott

With regard to water conservation, the main role for the EPA is in the area of waste prevention. We use a go-green stable of products, including green business, green school, green communities and green hotels, and as part of this we have produced a number of booklets to advise pubs, farms and hotels on conserving energy and water. This advice has yielded substantial savings.

In terms of our water safety plans, we encourage local authorities to work with their biggest users of waters, be they universities, industries or other large users, to agree reduction programmes for water use within their respective areas. That is further up the scheme than fixing pipes.

Three directives cover the discharge of wastewater into rivers, namely, the water framework directive, the dangerous substance directive and the urban wastewater treatment plants directive. In terms of what we want to achieve from the process, 40% of moderate pollution in our rivers is caused by wastewater treatment plants. The Deputy is correct that a number of wastewater treatment plants are either operating incorrectly or are discharging directly. In 2007 the EPA was given the role of licensing these plants and the first tranche comprised facilities which treated 2,000 or more population equivalents. We received 500 applications on that tranche. The next tranche comprised 500 applications from plants treating 50 to 2,000 population equivalents.

The strategy to achieve an outcome whereby no rivers are polluted by wastewater can be broken into three elements. The first element is licensing, in which regard we are setting down a deadline for putting infrastructure in place and setting out standards for monitoring and operation. We will then produce a report which identifies all the plants that are achieving the standards or are failing to do so. The first of these reports on wastewater treatment will issue at the end of this year.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

When does the EPA intend to reach the threshold beyond which it will not allow the current situation to continue?

Mr. Dara Lynott

We are all driving towards 2015 as a deadline. By 2015, all the substantive infrastructure will need to be put in place, the operation of the plants will be at a certain standard and new treatment plants will be established in locations where none existed in the past.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

Will this include all discharges?

Mr. Dara Lynott

I refer to wastewater treatment plants because the dangerous substances directive requires that dangerous substances emitted into the environment are regulated. The main tool Ireland is using to ensure that happens is the regulation of wastewater treatment plants. The EPA is tasked with assessing the applications for wastewater treatment plants in respect of their current standards of operation and the assimilative capacity of the respective rivers and putting forward an infrastructure timeframe. The deadline for the timeframe has to be 2015.

The second element of the strategy is operations. Too often, the operation of wastewater treatment plants is left to a caretaker who received little training in this area and simply has a knack for fixing pumps. If we are to attain the level of treatment we need to fix some of the problems in our rivers, the system has to be automated and computerised. We have worked closely with the water services training group to train hundreds of caretakers to the standards set out by the EPA. We have also worked with local authorities to develop guidelines in this regard.

The third element is enforcement. Ireland was put under the cosh by the European Court of Justice for non-compliance with the dangerous substances directive. The Commission told us to get our house in order before 2015, at which stage it will assess what needs to be done subsequently. Our job is to licence local authorities and build their capacity to operate these treatment plants. Ultimately, where the thresholds are breached or the infrastructure is not completed in time, we will carry out an enforcement role. We can serve directions or take prosecutions. We will be transparent in our actions. Every two years we will publish reports on wastewater that set out who is achieving the standards and who is failing to do so. It will be open to this committee to evaluate those reports.

Chairman

Would Dr. Johnson or Dr. Gill like to make a brief comment?

Dr. Laurence Gill

I will say a few words on conservation. Perhaps Dr. Johnson will talk about the groundwater issue. Reference has been made to the projections for future water demand in Dublin. Each person uses approximately 150 litres of water each day. One third of our highly treated clean water is flushed straight down the toilet, despite all the energy that has gone into it. Such water contains chemicals, particularly chlorine, which has its own environmental significance. Questions need to be asked on a local scale about whether we need to flush so much water down the toilet - of course we do not - and whether that water needs to be so clean. Many technologies can be used to retrofit toilets in a way that drastically reduces the amount of water that is flushed away. If that is done, there is a reduction in the amount of water that comes into the house and a consequent reduction in the demand for water. I am not sure some of these evaluations, such as the Shannon scheme, have looked at alternative and more local efficiency measures of this type. Low-volume shower heads can be installed to drastically reduce the amount of water one uses.

It is simple to install many of these existing technologies into people's houses. We are involved in a project with the Environmental Protection Agency that examines measures that drastically reduce water consumption. Such measures are very common in Scandinavian countries. There have been significant decreases in water consumption in countries where water charges have been introduced. That should be factored into the debate on the introduction of water charges here. One does not want to reduce water consumption to an unhealthy level. That also needs to be considered when deciding how to charge for water. We need to encourage people to fix local leaks in their houses. There is a great deal of room for the local conservation of water, for example in individual houses and industries. Water charges will bring that to the fore to a greater extent. Many technologies are available to allow rainfall to be used on a local scale for low-grade uses such as toilet flushing.

I will conclude by speaking about the desalination issue. I think it was always a red herring. I do not know why it was considered. When I worked in the industry, I used to design desalination plants for the Middle East. They have an extremely high cost. They require loads of maintenance and energy. They are only suitable for countries that have very little water supply but lots of money and cheap energy, which is not the situation here, obviously.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

On the question of reducing the usage of water-----

Chairman

I am aware-----

Deputy Timmy Dooley

Could any city be identified?

Chairman

The Deputy should not interrupt me when I am speaking. I will allow him back in briefly. He has had a great deal of time. Four or five other members want to speak. I ask him to keep his comments brief.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

Could the witnesses assist us in our deliberations by mentioning any city that has introduced a programme aimed at reducing its usage of clean water?

Mr. Gerry Galvin

Perhaps I can assist the Deputy in that regard. A number of cities across Europe have done this. It has all been driven through water charging. There is a payback period for consumers before they can achieve savings. A great deal of work has been done in Berlin over the last 15 years, since German reunification. The authorities there have invested in water systems through a combination of leakage reduction on the public mains side and encouraging demand reduction on the consumer side. All of this has been considered in the context of finding a long-term water source for Dublin and preparing for the statutory process that will be involved in obtaining a water extraction order and doing an environmental impact assessment of this scheme. The issues that have been examined include the installation of more efficient shower heads, as mentioned by Professor Gill, and the development of rainwater harvesting. It can be expensive to retrofit rainwater harvesting facilities to existing houses. It costs approximately €5,000 per house. As Professor Gill has indicated, we could reduce the amount of treated water that is used when flushing toilets by approximately 30%. Problems can arise at certain times of the year. We occasionally get dry summers. There have been prolonged frosty and dry periods, during which no rain fell, during the last two winters. Water supply systems have to be capable of providing water, even when rainwater harvesting systems are in place. If one has to invest €5,000, it will take one many years to get a payback on that level of investment, even if our water charges are the highest in Europe.

Deputy Dessie Ellis

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. After last night's events, it is unusual to be discussing a lack of water. I was out all night helping residents and dealing with the aftermath of the scandalous failure of our so-called emergency plan to kick in until 9 o'clock, by which time everything had happened. Dublin City Council needs to account for that. I would like to raise a few issues. When we were talking about the different methods of delivering water, various types of taps and shower heads were mentioned. The use of different types of tap heads in houses would probably be a big advantage in many cases. They are being used in other countries as a means of reducing water usage. The witnesses also spoke about how toilets can be adapted to ensure they use a smaller amount of water. I am interested in the use of detergents. We never seem to have a campaign aimed at stopping people from using detergents and bleaches. I have problems getting my wife to stop using so much bleach.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

The Deputy could clean the toilet himself.

Deputy Dessie Ellis

I do it myself as well. The Deputy should not worry. I have a problem with the way bleach is used. We need to get on top of this problem because bleach is a huge water pollutant. I heard what the witnesses said about how costly it is to store rain water. During cold periods, frost can present dangers to pipes, etc. The use of rain water needs to be explored further. It is probably much better in rural areas than it is in urban areas. That needs to be examined. As a member of a local authority in Dublin for 12 years, I know about the terrible problems caused by the outdated piping system in the inner city. The council has been making progress. The rate of water loss has been reduced to 26% in the city. The national rate of 41% is huge, however. We need to invest in improving our piping systems. Rather than spending €500 million or whatever they are talking about on metering, that money would be better invested in conserving the water we have so it is not lost.

Chairman

I would like to assist the Deputy by reminding him that it would be better for him to ask the experts their views, rather than presenting his views to them. We know from what he has just said what his views on metering are. I suggest he should ask the guests to outline their views on it.

Deputy Dessie Ellis

I am coming to some of that. I am curious about the Shannon issue. There have been many presentations on it. I would like to hear the witnesses' views on the alternatives to the proposal. I do not know the ins and outs of the ecological effects it would have on the River Shannon. Given that this country is awash with water, surely there are alternative places where we can store water before it is purified. It seems that the purification of water is the big issue. Having dealt with Dublin City Council, it seems that we have plenty of water but the big problem is getting it purified and delivering it out. I am curious to know whether any more thought has been given to the matter. We are constantly being presented with this proposal, which involves bring water from the River Shannon through the midlands to Dublin, as the answer. It seems like an expensive way of doing things, given that we have so much water. I would be interested in hearing more on that.

Mr. Mark Griffin

I will respond briefly to the question that was asked about the merits of water metering and water conservation. I do not believe it is a choice between one and the other. If the Government proceeds with a universal metering programme, as proposed in the programme for Government, that would have to be complemented by an acceleration of the water conservation programme. Both would be done in tandem.

Water conservation will address the leakage in the distribution network on the supply side, but there is a real problem which suggests that customer-side leakage could be as high as 65 litres per property per day. We have seen figures on this in the greater Dublin water project. More recent studies carried out by the city council suggest that customer-side leakage could be significantly higher in some areas, so we have to target both.

Will Mr. Galvin to articulate more extensively the choices made on the long-term source in Dublin and say something about the phosphorous issue as well? The EPA delegation can pick up on this as well.

Mr. Gerry Galvin

To meet short-term water demand in Dublin and in the eastern region, there are works involving new ground water sources in County Kildare, an extraction from the River Barrow, where construction started this year on a new water supply, an expansion of the Ballymore Eustace water treatment plant to take more water from Poulaphuca, and an expansion of Leixlip waterworks which is at tender stage at the moment and which will begin construction early in the new year. Those existing sources in the eastern area are being developed to their full capacity in advance of moving to the long-term source.

As part of looking at the long-term source, all available sources in the vicinity of the eastern region were also examined, including ground water. Ground water has some capacity and Dr. Johnston indicated that ground water can be found virtually anywhere here. However, it comes in small quantities and requires multiple abstractions, all with their own environmental issues, to address the volume required to meet the long-term requirements of the greater Dublin area.

The phosphorous issue is an issue about discharges that has been addressed through a voluntary scheme involving all the manufacturers of detergents, so that phosphorous is now no longer used in detergent manufacture. That has greatly reduced the levels of phosphorous being discharged. Perhaps the EPA delegation might like to make a further comment on that.

Mr. Dara Lynott

We have no further comment to make, because we do not deal with the inputs into waste water treatment plants as much as the outputs that come from them. Bleach is a big issue if a person has a septic tank. If one is looking for bugs to grow and break down sewage, a big load of bleach will ensure that those bugs will not be around for too much longer. There is a major education programme involved. With all those new houses being built, there has been a significant increase in the amount of bleach like products and this is something that will have to be dealt with in upcoming legislation on septic tanks.

Chairman

Would either Dr. Johnston or Dr. Gill like to comment?

Dr. Paul Johnston

I agree with what Mr. Galvin said about the ground water issue. Ground water has a role to play, but the problem is that it is a distributed resource in itself, so that in order to meet the levels demanded for the supply to Dublin, we would need quite a network of supply points. That is possible and some countries do that, but our ground water resources are not that high scale when compared with international sedimentary basins. Unfortunately, our geology is such that our major aquifers tend to be in the western regions, so that does not get us very far when trying to supply Dublin. Ground water has been used successfully in places like north Kildare, so it has a role in the context of the demand being put on it. However, if we have to supply water from a remote source, we may have to pay for a pipeline anyway.

Deputy Dessie Ellis

On the links between North and South in combining the system, is that very advanced? I am curious how we link common water supplies along the Border areas. Is that being pushed?

Mr. Mark Griffin

There is ongoing co-operation between North and South on the development of the international river basin management plan. There are discussions between the Government and the Executive at the moment about exploring areas where there can be further collaboration in the water sector. There is a programme of work to be scoped out and developed in the next while, but at this stage, apart from the river basin management plans, the areas of co-operation in water are more at concept stage rather than any firm proposals. We can keep the committee informed on developments in this area.

Deputy Marcella Corcoran Kennedy

I thank the delegations for their presentations. What role do they see for local authorities in the national water company? I know they referred to the cost implications for a particular unit for rainwater harvesting. I live in a rural area. I see the size of the sites on which houses are built, and I think there is potential in this. Has anybody explored the harvesting of rainwater, not only for the use of the property owners, but as a commodity that can be sold? Even in some new public buildings, there surely must be potential for us to harvest water. Is there any proposal for reusing greywater in a domestic and possibly commercial setting?

It was mentioned that the major aquifers are in the western region. We had a delegation in here giving us a report on proposals to explore for shale gas in Cavan and Leitrim. I know the EPA has been asked to look into hydraulic fracturing as a means of exploration. I would be concerned about the impact of that on our water. Have any opinions been formed by anybody here on that? When will that research be presented?

Mr. Dara Lynott

The Department officials would be better placed to answer questions on Irish Water, water conservation and harvesting, surface water harvesting, greywater domestic and commercial settings, because the EPA has not really been involved in these areas, although the EPA has water harvesting in its public building.

There is currently an exploratory phase on hydraulic fracturing under the control of the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, so we have no role at the moment. However, if it goes to a commercial footing, the businesses involved will need several permits. They will need permits from the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, planning permission from An Bord Pleanála and they will need a licence from the EPA, because it comes under the remit of the integrated pollution and prevention control directive.

We have not formed a view that this is either good or bad. One is legally entitled to apply to the EPA for a licence to carry out hydraulic fracturing, but we would have to assess that against the water framework directive that we just mentioned, the ground water directive, the environmental objective surface water directive, the environmental liabilities directive and the heritage, habitats and protected species legislation. There is a whole series of filters, and if the Deputy's concern is with aquifers in the west of Ireland, the ground water is the main directive that sets out the standards and the requirements for anyone discharging into the groundwater and abstracting from that subsequently.

What things will we look at? Obviously, the potential for groundwater contamination is one, while methane migration and chemical use is another. Climate change impact on water usage is another. Any applicant would have to demonstrate that they have dealt with all of those issues. If an application is made, it is on our website and anyone can make a submission. Any decision is on our website and anyone can object to that, so it is a fully transparent process.

Like a lot of regulators, we are doing a lot of research to see what is being developed. We have a desktop research study that will basically collate all the stated knowledge in this area in one place. It will take another few months to deal with it, but one of the outcomes of that will be to commission research that will look into the Irish experience. That is particularly because, like Scotland and England, we have some similar geology that would be appropriate for shale hydraulic fracturing. We will do the desktop study, which will take two or three months. From that, they will probably say that the research is in the US and France, and we will need to do some research on the Irish situation. We have teamed up with the University of Aberdeen who are experts in this area and have huge geology expertise. They will do this desktop study and on that basis we will talk to the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - which will be the primary regulator in this area, at least in the exploratory phase - to try to commission some research on the suitability of impacts on hydraulic fracturing in the Irish context.

Deputy Marcella Corcoran Kennedy

I was under the impression that the Minister has already asked the EPA for a report on that. Is that correct?

Mr. Dara Lynott

It is ongoing. We have a desktop study that we are doing in collaboration with the Minister's Department. We will continue to collaborate with that Department because the EPA and the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources will be looking at it.

Ms Maria Graham

A question was posed about Irish Water. As Mr. Mark Griffin said, the study into this is ongoing. It is an independent assessment that is required under the EU-IMF programme and reflects the commitment in the programme for Government to transfer water service functions from local authorities to a company. The assessment is looking at the optimum organisational structures, as well as powers and responsibilities and a detailed implementation timetable. In the first instance, two options are being examined: a water company, which be a self-financing public water utility in a regulated environment, or a company that is charged mainly with investment in the sector, with local authorities operating as agents. That ongoing study is examining a range of factors to make recommendations, including doing a SWOT analysis. The strengths of the current system are reflected in the track record, to which Mr. Griffin referred, of delivering infrastructure. The diversity of supply means there is a very experienced workforce who know those assets well. There is also an ability to mobilise local resources as we saw in how local authorities operated in harsh, severe winters. All those factors have to be taken into account when doing the independent assessment. The work is ongoing and the timetable must be examined by the Government by the end of this year.

Dr. Laurence Gill

I wish to answer the question about rainfall harvesting and grey water recycling. Rainfall harvesting does not have to be done on a single house basis. It does not necessarily have to provide 100% of toilet flushing needs because that can always be topped up. If it saves 80% of demand then it is still 80%. There can be wider schemes for ten houses together, which has been tried in certain countries to provide a certain type of water source and a certain quality of lower grade water. There are lots of technologies that work very well, including re-treating bath and shower water in a simpler fashion on site. That scenario is probably not appropriate in a city such as Dublin with an established sewer network. It is more appropriate for single houses out in the country. A lot of the sewerage system has been designed on the basis of certain flows going along the sewer, whereby one keeps solids moving. Therefore grey water recycling probably would not be a good idea for Dublin city, but it would be in wider rural areas.

Chairman

Before moving on from that, what is Dr. Gill's view of rainwater harvesting? There is a retrospective cost of about €5,000 for an existing household. If it were to be a regulation that all future developments should include rainwater harvesting, given that the price of construction has dropped quite significantly and the build cost of a house has become so cheap, does Dr. Gill think we should regard this as being a mandatory requirement under planning regulations in the same way as double glazing?

Dr. Laurence Gill

Yes, personally I would. Rainwater harvesting for toilet flushing has to go along with drastically reducing the size of the cistern as well. I have done studies in my own house and I think I could meet 90% of the water I use throughout the year. If it needs an extra 10% for the mains, so be it.

Chairman

Would Dr. Gill have an indication of the costs involved? If it is €5,000 to install retrospectively, what would it be to install with the initial build?

Mr. Gerry Galvin

We carried out a study through DIT Bolton Street which looked both at rural houses and farmyards. It was felt that it was appropriate in new build, and the costs would come down substantially if it was installed as part of normal construction. There would not be much increase in plumbing costs as one would be putting in - albeit connecting up somewhat differently - the internal plumbing. It would certainly be appropriate for one-off houses. As the Chairman rightly pointed out, my earlier comment concerned the cost of retrofitting systems. In a farmyard situation there are certain circumstances where water can be used for normal farmyard activities, but drinking water is required for dairying, not run-off quality. There are certain hygiene issues regarding roof run-off, particularly with bird droppings being on roofs.

I want to make one point on grey water re-use. There are huge issues about user acceptability in this area. In many European countries, in particular, it is either illegal or its use is severely restricted. For example, in Denmark the use of grey water is restricted for reasons of hygiene and user acceptability.

The building regulations, which were amended two years ago, now require dual-flush toilets in all new houses. The planning guidance on new developments require rainwater harvesting to be considered for new developments.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I have a number of questions and they will not be in any nice tidy order. I am aware of a serious incident a number of years ago concerning contaminated ground water in Kildare. Are there any conflicts concerning surface water as opposed to ground water? Do different levels of treatment or care have to be attended to? Public health is obviously a key issue.

The River Liffey is the major water supply for the greater Dublin area. As regards the last upgrade of the Fingal plant, is there a finite level in the river? Are we at the last upgrade at this stage? Does the finite level impact on the intervention that must take place if we extract excessively? Will there be a less clean product going into treatment plants?

Will it be suggested to local authorities that they should incorporate some sort of discount in development levy schemes for new builds that include rainwater harvesting? Obviously it is better to go for new builds than retrofits, if at all possible, in terms of those types of interventions. While I do not know the nature of future involvement on the part the various monitoring organisations, such as the EPA, OPW and GSI, I wonder whether there is an attempt to rationalise these bodies in the context of considering the establishment of the new water authority? Would that matter?

With regard to the EPA, is the licensing system satisfactory? I have had reason to be concerned over a private system licensed for an industrial process. Obtaining a satisfactory conclusion seems painfully slow. Is there a deficiency in the licensing system that needs to be examined? I refer to waste water. While many of the systems of the EPA for teasing out matters and licensing are very good on paper, one must ask whether there are sufficient enforcement tools in the armoury.

With regard to the section on charging for water, is it viable to have a metering system that would involve charging only after a free quota is used up? If so, what impact would this have on charging? If the infrastructure is to be assumed, will the liabilities also be assumed? Have these been quantified?

A member asked who would run the proposed service. This is being considered at present.

Mr. Mark Griffin

I will answer a number of the questions and ask Mr. Gerry Galvin and Ms Maria Graham to answer others.

The provisions for development levies under section 48 of the planning legislation are quite general. There is considerable latitude available to local authorities in regard to how they structure their development contribution schemes. The decisions are for the elected members. There are examples of individual local authorities having taken decisions on providing rebates or moratoriums regarding the payment of development levies. Louth County Council, for example, introduced a scheme last year to reduce development levies for manufacturing industries by 50% where those industries are creating new employment. I was asked whether there would be a reduced level for rainwater harvesting. There is no impediment to a local authority taking a decision in this regard.

On abstraction, I will ask Mr. Galvin to say a little about the specific issue pertaining to the River Liffey. The extent to which one can extract from a water resource is generally dictated in the abstraction order, with which one must comply. Significant environmental issues could arise if there were over-abstraction leading to changes to the water depth, flow velocity and water quality. Where there is over-extraction from midsummer to late summer, when rivers are naturally at their lowest levels, the habitat available for trout or salmon, for example, is significantly reduced.

As part of the study being undertaken on Irish water, the liabilities on local authorities' books are being quantified. I admit they are at a reasonably high level at this stage. As part of the move to an Irish Water operation, there would have to be further extensive work undertaken on the liabilities and assets of local authorities. We do not have a very good handle, at local authority or departmental levels, on the extent of local authority assets, be they associated with water or waste water infrastructure or the distribution networks.

The study is examining the range of players in the sector, their roles, whether those roles may need to be reassigned under any new arrangement, and the need for new roles. If one introduces a national entity such as Irish Water and introduces water charges, by metering or other means, one must regulate the system and ensure charges are set at the correct level. One would have to ensure the capital investment programme undertaken by any new entity was sensible and pragmatic and reflected a real need. One would have to ensure the entity was providing the necessary customer service. All the new functions that would arise on foot of the introduction of water charging would have to be managed in the new arrangement.

I will ask Mr. Galvin to speak about the Leixlip project.

Mr. Gerry Galvin

Mr. Griffin mentioned a water abstraction order applying in the normal course of events and to the setting of a limit to abstraction. The case of the River Liffey is different to other cases because the facility is controlled by the ESB. There is an abstraction agreement with the ESB on the level of abstraction. With the current expansion of the Ballymore Eustace facility and the proposed expansion of the plant in Leixlip, the amount of water extracted will be at the limit of the parameters set out in the agreement. Apart from one considering the environmental issues associated with over abstraction, one must realise that if one abstracts more than the reliable yield of the source, there will not be sufficient water to abstract in a dry year. Over-abstraction does not affect the quality or treatment level required but it can affect the quantity. In a dry year, they will not be sufficient water.

Groundwater must meet the same drinking water quality standards as other water but the type of treatment required is different because the level of contaminants is different. In north Kildare, for example, issues arise over iron, manganese and hardness. The latter is not a quality parameter and there are no standards of compliance set for it. There are for iron and manganese. I grew up on hard water and regard it as much more refreshing to drink than soft water from a surface-water source but I realise those used to soft water have difficulty getting used to hard water.

Reference was made to the contamination of groundwater. If groundwater becomes polluted, it can take a lot longer for it to recover than surface water. If a surface water pollution incident occurs in a river, it does not feature a day or two later because the water has flowed on. This does not happen with groundwater. It can take much longer for groundwater to recover, bearing in mind Professor Johnson's comment that our groundwaters generally turn themselves over within a year. However, it could take up to a year for contamination to disappear from a groundwater source.

Mr. Mark Griffin

I neglected to deal with one issue that Deputy Murphy raised, namely, the viability of the free allowance. It is certainly viable but a number of issues arise. Jurisdictions with the free allowance in place, such as Belgium, which has a free allowance of approximately 40 litres per person per day, have very good systems for determining the occupancy of households. Everyone must carry a national identity card. I lived in Belgium for four years and noted that if one did not carry one's identification card, one was in big trouble.

Chairman

As with the Germans in 1940.

Mr. Mark Griffin

Such supportive infrastructure and technology are in place in other jurisdictions. In Ireland, where we do not have such systems, the introduction of a free allowance is somewhat more challenging. Let us consider a situation where water is being paid for by meter. A number of jurisdictions use a system called a block tariff. The first block is set at zero. In other words, it is effectively free, which is something, but it does not get over the identification of the numbers in a household. Under the block tariff system the more one uses, the more one pays. The Government has made it clear that in any system to be introduced there will be a free allowance. That commitment is in the programme for Government and we must come up with a mechanism of ensuring that commitment is adequately implemented in any new proposals.

Dr. Paul Johnston

I will follow up on the comments about ground water. It is important to distinguish between pollution contamination that arises from a polluting activity and other contamination. I hesitate to say so but, for example, agriculture can cause problems for ground water in the long run. The natural contaminants that Mr. Galvin referred to are a natural consequence of where water is flowing in the ground and they can be treated relatively easily. It is worth bearing in mind that almost all the bottled water that we buy in the shop is bottled ground water which has no treatment whatsoever. On the whole it is a pretty good medium although if it does get polluted, it takes a while for the pollution to work through, simply because of the velocity involved.

Mr. Gerard O’Leary

I wish to add a comment on ground water. We do approximately 100 audits each year throughout the 900 public water supplies. We try to target themes. We have just finished a programme specifically examining ground water. With regard to the comments on natural contaminants and pollution, often one may have a perfect source protected well around the area but then one can get contamination of the well-head. We have carried out an extensive series of audits to examine well-head protection. We have guidance available in this area for local authorities as well. As Dr. Johnson suggested, if one has a good ground water source one needs fewer chemicals to treat it afterwards so there is a great benefit to the operation of the plant and to the consumer of the water.

Mr. Dara Lynott

Reference was made to enforcement. If the issue is waste water treatment in general, we can talk about it, or if there is a specific area, we can discuss it as well. In general some of the most challenging waste water treatment issues in the industrial sense relate to the food and drink sector. One reason for this is seasonality. For example, if cattle are on the grass all summer and then they all come in to be slaughtered at the same time, there is a great impact on the waste water treatment system. The same applies in the food and drink sector with the seasonality of products and so on. The food and drink sector is interesting because it came in for licensing in two tranches, one of which was associated with large dairy manufacture. However, the full introduction of the integrated pollution prevention and control, IPPC, directive into Irish law in the past two years is relevant for a significant number of the smaller food and drink sectors which use milk or milk products. In many such cases we have found that the infrastructure is very poor. There have been years of chronic under-investment in these facilities and, in some cases, poor regulation or enforcement.

The agency is faced with a viable industry working off the food and drink sector, which is one of our major export areas. We must get the industry from where we find it to where it should be. As with the urban waste water treatment plant challenge, we try to set out what can be done feasibly between the time we issue the licence and when a firm can get all the infrastructure in place. With some of the facilities this could take one, two or two and a half years, depending on the level of investment. The plans for investment are based on the plans forwarded by those in the industry. Let us suppose a firm proposes to build a waste water treatment plant in 18 months and we agree that this seems reasonable. This goes into the licence but perhaps the firm finds that it does not have the money or whatever. Our job is to give it the time to build the plant it has agreed to build and, after that period, to take prosecutions on foot of it.

The period between the issuing of the licence and when the infrastructure is in place can be challenging. We try to manage the public, which has a great expectation of the EPA that once a licence is issued, things will change, and the reality of the situation that it can take between one year, 18 months or sometimes two years to get the infrastructure in place to avoid noise, odour and so on. When we do not get buy-in from companies, we have no difficulty in taking enforcement action. We carry out more than 2,000 inspections per year and we take approximately 20 to 30 prosecutions per year, some of which involve higher court actions in the District Court or High Court. If there are other particular issues, I can discuss them as well.

Chairman

I will bring in Deputies Stanley, Bannon and Kitt presently and, if he wishes, I will invite Deputy Niall Collins, but I wish to put some questions myself. I thank the members of Trinity College, the EPA and the Department for coming before the committee this afternoon. I wish to scope out some of the issues. Mr. Griffin referred to the personal security numbers in Belgium. Several countries in Europe, including Denmark, have these. They were introduced by the Nazis in 1939 or 1940 and the replacement governments held on to the system. It is not that we have something similar in Ireland but we have an identification process for households using PPS numbers. Under the previous Administration this committee extensively examined the options for converting the current register of electors from a household system, as is the case currently, to one that would be PPS-based. What consideration has the Department given to the idea to consider households as PPS-based systems if we were to discuss the matter Deputy Murphy raised with regard to allowances? Deputy Bannon worked on that report with other members of the committee at the time, including me.

Ireland has a remarkably inaccurate register of electors at present. The Northern Ireland register of electors was a basket case and there was all sorts of carry-on, such as proxy voting, that would inevitably entice people to create a basket case of a register of electors. Now it has one of the most accurate register of electors in the western world. It has a more than 90% accuracy rate which makes it almost 100% in real terms. If one is at 90%, one is at 100%. Has the Department given consideration to a PPS-based register of electors to ensure we know the accuracy of people's households as part of the billing process?

I advert to Dr. Johnson's remarks at the outset. He referred to an annual 6% or 8% extraction of the Shannon. Has the Department identified harvest periods during the year when the 6% could be extracted or would it amount to 6% per day because one ends up with the same sum? I assume there are particular times of the year during which the Department has identified rainfalls and when harvesting could take place so that it could be 20% on a given day as opposed to 6% every day.

The elephant in the room or the real issue is Irish Water, which we should discuss specifically. The programme for Government makes it clear that a utility called Irish Water will be created. It was interesting to listen to Dr. Johnson and Dr. Gill this afternoon. Their presentations made a clear separation between regulation and protection and treatment and supply. I gather from the deputation's position that there should be two separate vehicles or entities. Where would the EPA lie after the creation of Irish Water? I presume the EPA delegation would like to know the answer to that question as well. Nevertheless, I am keen to hear their thoughts on it this afternoon. Whither the EPA after the creation of Irish Water? What are the delegation's views? To what extent would Irish Water be engaged in the management of the supply and treatment? Would Irish Water manufacture and sell it while local authorities would get the sewage end of it, to hint at the metaphor about the dirty end of a stick? Would they end up with the cost of having to treat it or does the delegation envisage Irish Water as an all-encompassing situation from the manufacturing end, the recycling and treatment end down to the faucet in someone's household, that Irish Water would be some sort of conglomerate? I understand PricewaterhouseCoopers is doing an assessment on behalf of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government to scope out the role of Irish Water. I also understand something akin to a tendering process has been opened. What agencies, other than the Department, are part of the PricewaterhouseCoopers examination? Has it engaged with Bord na Móna, Bord Gáis or other State owned or private companies on the possibility of performing the role of Irish water? What is the timeframe for establishing Irish Water?

Mr. Mark Griffin

To be clear on the issue of Irish water, the Chairman should direct some of his questions to the Environmental Protection Agency to elicit its views on governance and so forth. As Ms Graham stated, the terms of reference provide for examining two alternatives. The first would be a company operating as a self-financing public water utility in a regulated environment and responsible for operation, maintenance and investments in all water services infrastructure, customer billing and charging. In such a scenario, one would have an ESB type operation in which all the functions would reside in one State company. The second option considered was a company charged mainly with investment in the sector which would deal with strategic planning, delivery of projects on a regional or national basis and a national metering programme if it proceeds, while the local authorities would operate as agents of the company, retaining their operational responsibilities for the delivery of smaller scale investments. One could draw a comparison between this scenario and the role of the National Roads Authority, which deals with the national roads programme, strategic planning, funding for the roads programme and tolling schemes on the M50, M4 and M3, while the local authorities retain responsibility for the non-national roads programme. These two models and variants thereof were considered. In the context of the variants we asked the consultants to examine other international models, for example, Scottish Water which serves an area similar to Ireland in terms of population dispersal. Scotland moved from a local authority system under which 14 local authorities managed the water programme to three regional authorities managing the system and, subsequently, one national authority with overall responsibility for the system.

It is important to clarify that the PwC examination is an independent assessment. We have a steering group, which I chair, whose members include Ms Graham and Mr. Galvin, representatives of the County and City Managers Association, the project director for NewERA and an official from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. An extensive consultation process was undertaken as part of the study. We spoke to the trade unions, IBEC, the County and City Managers Association and a number of State agencies. We spoke to the agencies partly because they have much to offer in terms of their background and experience in dealing with networks and because it makes sense to do so at a time when the Government has made it crystal clear that it wants to reduce the number of State agencies. The programme for Government includes such a commitment and the issue is being considered as part of the comprehensive review of expenditure.

In moving to a position where one establishes a national water company it makes sense to consider the agencies which may have something to offer in terms of a skills mix, governance structure and experience operating in the sector. In the case of Bord Gáis, it has people with experience of the utility sector and knowledge of operating a network, albeit in a different type of infrastructure. These issues have been examined.

In terms of a timeline for completion of the study, we are required under the EU-IMF memorandum of understanding to have it completed by the end of 2011. We are also required to consult the troika as part of the finalisation process. Working back from there, it is our intention to have the work being undertaken by PwC and the Government's consideration of it concluded in the coming month.

The Environmental Protection Agency regulates 34 water services authorities. Under the public utility model, for example, the EPA would regulate Irish water from an environmental compliance perspective and all the other parameters Mr. Lynott outlined. There would also be separate economic regulation. If we established an economic regulator, we would clearly examine the existing regulators.

Chairman

Would the regulator set the tariff?

Mr. Mark Griffin

Yes. We would look at existing regulators and have already looked at the Commissioner for Energy Regulation. If one considers the position in Northern Ireland, it has the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation which regulates water and energy. Perhaps Mr. Lynott wishes to comment on the EPA's views on Irish water or the direction we may take.

Mr. Dara Lynott

I will comment not so much on our view of Irish water but on what the EPA is trying to achieve from the process. As I have indicated, what we are trying to achieve from this process is clean water and clean drinking water. How these two objectives are achieved is very much a black box but we know our role, unless it is substantially changed, will be as a standard setter. We will set standards for environmental protection and guidance and will continue to have an enforcement role in that area. The other area we have put into the mix is the need for sustained investment in water infrastructure. We will not achieve sustainability if we cannot tell companies or families that they can locate in a particular area on the basis that we can provide clean water for new industry and sufficient capacity to treat additional waste water.

However, securing clean water for Ireland is not only an issue for the Department, the Environmental Protection Agency and local authorities. It is also a matter for a slew of other agencies, including the Office of Public Works, fisheries bodies and farming organisations. The point we are making in the governance debate, especially to PwC, is that if this is our chance to get money into the system that will provide infrastructure in a sustainable manner in future, it is also our chance to get money into the system that will provide the impetus to do all the other bits that have to be done to deliver clean water.

The framework directive on clean water is complex. The EPA's argument is that clean water should be part of the economic reality. This will allow local authorities, the primary regulator in this area, to establish prevention, conservation and education programmes and build consensus by paying for people to come together to discuss problems and produce solutions. As part of the governance debate, a clear set of rules must emerge on who is in charge of what. Irish water is a small part of water governance. Given the large number of players involved, dealing with waste water treatment plants and drinking water will solve part of the problem but not all of it.

We have a great opportunity in infrastructure to define the precise role of the local authorities, Environmental Protection Agency and Irish water within an integrated framework of public service that would provide for the outcomes we seek, namely, clean water and clean drinking water.

Chairman

I ask Dr. Johnston to respond to the question on the extraction rate of 8%.

Dr. Paul Johnston

The figure of 6% of net rainfall was on an annual basis. While the rules for abstraction and restoring this water within an intervening reservoir would have to be worked out, the rate would vary during the year. One would not have a constant abstraction rate of 6%.

Chairman

The graph in the presentation showed that rainfall is increasing. Has Dr. Johnston identified particular times of the year when water harvesting could be done?

Dr. Paul Johnston

It is very much a question of devising an appropriate set of rules for the situation. I have not devised them but that is the way it normally would be done. It can be done quite easily. The whole point is that the rate of abstraction at any time of the year has to take into account the ecological requirements of the system as well as navigation, where appropriate.

Mr. Mark Griffin

I wanted to pick up on a point that Mr. Dara Lynott made. It is a very important point, one I should have mentioned. The capacity for us as a country to fund the provision of new water and wastewater infrastructure and the upgrades that are required is declining. That is a fact. One must consider the adjustment of €3.6 billion which has to be achieved next year by a combination of cuts and new taxes, with most of the cuts coming in the current side. Quite clearly the current side cannot take all the pain. If that adjustment is somewhat more than €3.6 billion, there will be pressure on capital budgets at a time when a need is emerging from the river basin management plans, in addition to the need to support and encourage new industry into the country, which as Mr. Lynott mentioned, is increasing quite dramatically. The capacity of the State to be the sole funder of water is no longer tenable. In considering what form Irish Water might take, one would have to consider a number of ideas. One to be considered for example, would be what form would allow the State access to the greatest amount of funding. Another is the form financial markets recognise in terms of the financial packages they produce. Obviously that is a consideration for us. I think Mr. Gerry Galvin will be quite familiar with this, but it was highlighted to us by PricewaterhouseCoopers in the course of the analysis. Unlike other infrastructure where one can invest and then stop and leverage that investment, water requires a steady rate of investment on an ongoing basis. One cannot stop and start. There must be ongoing investment in new infrastructure and asset replacement. There is a steady high level of investment required in water and wastewater infrastructure.

Mr. Gerry Galvin

Yes, Chairman. To echo that, let us look at the UK, which has a privatised water company, but at the same time, it is no different in terms of the level of capital investment required. That company is on its fifth five year programme of investment. Each programme has increased in terms of the capital spend required to meet the requirements, such as what is now required under the water framework directive. That is funded through long-term borrowings by the company, which is enabled by having a public company being able to do it, rather than relying on the Exchequer to fund it on a year on year basis.

On the abstraction question which was put to Professor Johnston, An Bord Pleanála is the competent authority and it will set the abstraction regime in dealing with the water abstraction order. The Dublin proposal by providing the storage at Garryhinch, provides that there can be a period of up to five months when it will not abstract at all because the flows in the Shannon will be too low. They will only abstract for a period of seven months in a dry year when the flow in the Shannon will be sufficient. The abstraction will not have an impact and will take flood waters from the Shannon and store it in the storage facility in Garryhinch. An Bord Pleanála will set the regime when looking at the water abstraction order, should it approve the project.

Chairman

That modelling will have certain levels at which the Shannon cannot be used.

Mr. Gerry Galvin

Absolutely. It will require flow monitoring in the Shannon and when the flow drops below a particular level that abstraction must cease.

Chairman

I now call Deputies Stanley, Bannon and Kitt in that order.

Deputy Brian Stanley

I thank the delegations from the EPA, the Department and Trinity College for their presentations. I have a number of questions on the abstraction of water from the Shannon. Concern has been raised about the extraction rate from the Shannon. The figures quoted today are much lower than those specified in the document. According to this document, it is 6% of the annual total. Will the delegates clarify that point?

A question constantly raised with Members is whether the level of abstraction will have a significant effect on the ecological system in the Shannon basin. No doubt it will be raised again tomorrow when we go to Lough Derg. One of the speakers mentioned a level of risk to aquifers. Will the delegates outline the main risks to aquifers, bore wells and ground water?

I am a little taken aback by talk of Irish Water, or a national water authority. I was elected in February and I would have thought that in a functioning democracy, the people to discuss a proposal and make a decision in principle to go ahead with it would be the elected representatives from each constituency. I know the Government has made a decision but to my recollection, and I have not missed too many days, it was not discussed in the Chamber. It seems to be a done deal. PricewaterhouseCoopers is doing an assessment and the troika has decreed that we must do this. Everybody has thrown in his tuppence worth and is driving this along. Departmental officials are tied up with it, but the elected representatives have not had the opportunity to discuss it. There appears to be two completely different tracks on the way it should go. First, it is suggested that a public utility company comparable with the ESB should be established. I can see significant problems with that suggestion which appears to be the Government's favoured proposal. There is local knowledge, which the engineers, the local authority water services staff, director of services, councillors and other elected members have built up on water services. Do the delegates see a problem with that?

The other option would be the NRA model, in that an authority would oversee major infrastructural projects such as the Shannon-Dublin project but the local authorities would run the water system in their counties. I would see that as more feasible. Will the delegation comment on Northern Ireland Water, which is at arms length from the Executive in the North, is totally out of reach of the local authorities who have no connection at all with it and we have seen the results of that in the past two winters. The elected members, officials and community groups had significant problems trying to get through to Northern Ireland Water. In the South, where there has been under-investment, and limited resources in every county, the authorities responded by and large. I was without water for six days, but a good stand-by system was put in place. Everything worked. The local authorities are often accused of many things, but each did trojan work during that period.

My second question refers to design, build and operate, DBO, contracts, what evidence is there to show that DBOs for wastewater treatment are more efficient and cheaper than ordinary design and build projects operated by the local authorities over a prolonged period of between 25 to 30 years?

Chairman

The practice at meetings has been that we take one lead spokesperson from each party and answers are given at the end.

Deputy James Bannon

The EPA has given us an insight. It has found evidence of improvement in water quality. Perhaps it might provide this finding on a region by region basis. There are areas of the country where water quality is much poorer than in other regions. The presentation spoke of 25,000 kms of pipe throughout the country and of an estimated figure of 5,000 group water schemes which are still in operation. Given that there are figures from the Central Statistics Office, we should have a more accurate, county by county figure. We need to know about the level of asbestos piping still in the ground that delivers water to households and whether this piping is a threat to human safety.

Another issue, raised by my colleague, concerns my area. Two companies have been granted licences for drilling but concerns have been raised at a number of public meetings about the whole issue of fracking for shale gas deposits in bedrock and the impact this might have on the bedrock, especially such impact on drinking water supplies from deep wells. This is not treated water but comes directly from the ground into the system and serves a significant number of homes in the area.

Another point is the establishment of the national water authority, which is very much favoured by our guests today. There is a fear that the entire water supply system might be privatised at some stage in the future. That would be another asset up for grabs further down the road and I have some concern about that.

There is also the matter of sampling and monitoring water supplies which is sometimes carried out by local authorities or the EPA. I have witnessed supplies of water from public systems which have excessive amounts of chlorine, especially in the mornings when people turn their taps on. This is a common complaint to public representatives, not only to Members of the Oireachtas but to our councillor colleagues. People speak of finding a white froth in their taps in the early morning. How transparent are the monitoring and sampling systems? I would have concerns about that.

Another point that caught the imagination, which the Chairman raised before I could, is the main reason I have stayed. The goal posts are being moved all the time in regard to the extraction of amounts of water from the River Shannon. We were told at one stage by Bord na Móna the extraction was in the region of 2%, or a little more. Today we were given an indication that the extraction figure may be 6%. There is no clarity to the management of this exercise. If it is not managed properly it will have a serious impact. A number of pressure groups are contacting politicians from counties along the River Shannon. They have genuine fear with regard to the effects of this extraction and the impact it will have on the river, from a tourism point of view. The whole mid-west region depends on the Shannon for tourism. I would not like to see a situation that has happened to certain rivers in Russia and other parts of the world which have dried up completely after over-extraction of water. We need clarity in these issues. We do not want to be searching for answers and making accommodations until a system is in place. I would like to know what research there has been by the Department into the desalination of sea water.

For years rehabilitated dumps were provided by local authorities but now they are a source of methane gas. Are they still being monitored to the same extent as they were ten years ago? Is the monitoring done by the local authorities or by the EPA?

I thank the delegates for their patience and would welcome answers to those questions.

Chairman

Before I call on Deputy Kitt, I refer Deputy Bannon to the transcript of today's proceedings where he will find desalination was discussed at some length. He was absent for a small while but the matter was discussed during that time. There will then be time to attend to his other questions.

Deputy Michael Kitt

I welcome the visitors. I usually chair Question Time in the Dáil on Tuesdays.

Chairman

That is fine.

Deputy Michael Kitt

That is why I am usually late. My question concerns the national water company. There will be investment in public schemes but I am more concerned about group water schemes and private wells. Such wells may often be forgotten even though there are grants for them, in limited circumstances. They might become even more popular were water charges to increase.

There was mention of agricultural activity and local authorities being brought to book for pollution. Two years ago there was serious flooding - as there was yesterday and last night. I refer to my own county in this regard. Two years ago flooding and its impact on water schemes was a significant issue. Who looks at that situation in regard to what can be done to prevent such occurrence in the future? It seems to be happening more often. Who deals with the pollution of water schemes?

Mr. Mark Griffin

There were quite a number of questions; I will answer some of them. I refer to the points made by Deputy Stanley. As public servants, one of the principal mandates of Oireachtas Members is to ensure they implement what the Government has included in its programme for Government. That programme is crystal clear on the issue of Irish water. It states that a national water company will be established to take over the functions of the 34 existing local authorities. The principal driver for this, as is clear in the programme for Government, is accelerated planned investments to upgrade the State's inefficient and leaking water network. The EU-IMF agreement, which predates the programme for Government, requires the undertaking of an independent assessment on the transfer of responsibility for water service provision from local authorities to a water utility. The move in that direction is a done deal but how it looks is far from a done deal and work is being undertaken by PricewaterhouseCoopers. This is an independent assessment and is not binding on the Government. The Government will make its own judgment in regard to how it wants to structure and restructure the water sector. It will be informed by the independent assessment. No decision has been taken at this time by the Government as to how the structure might look.

The move to an Irish water authority was in the public domain. The appointment of consultants was by open tender and there have been parliamentary questions in regard to an Irish water company, which have been addressed by the Minister. Once the Government takes a decision and agrees on a new organisational form, whatever that might be, obviously this must be backed up by legislation and established on a statutory basis. In the normal course of bringing legislation through the Dáil and the Seanad the matter will come before this committee for discussion and consideration.

We were very conscious of the issues raised by Deputy Stanley in regard to the present local authority operation of water services and its strength in terms of an experienced local workforce familiar with the assets and operating conditions. Any new structure that is put in place will haveto tap into the existing resource and ensure the knowledge that exists locally is available to any new organisation which may be put in place.

At the end of last December and January we saw the efforts made by local authority staff, not just those in the water services area. Local authorities brought in staff from other areas. People who gritted roads were driving tankers and putting standpipes in place. We are conscious of the capacity of the local authority system to mobilise resources to deal with emergency situations, as it did last winter.

Privatisation is not on the agenda. That is a statement of fact. Any utility that might be put in place will be publicly owned. The political system has made that clear.

I will ask Mr. Galvin to discuss the issues around Northern Ireland Water. The system was able to mobilise in the Republic last Christmas compared with the difficulties experienced in the North. Louth County Council was able to tanker water over the Border. There were particular issues with the Northern Ireland arrangements at that time which were subsequently probed by the Committee of Public Accounts, something with which Mr. Galvin is quite familiar.

Mr. Gerry Galvin

We participated in an independent review of the Northern Ireland response. We were asked to give our views because it wanted to compare and contrast the response in the South with the experience of the North. As Mr. Griffin said, the Northern Ireland Assembly public accounts committee conducted a review in March this year and published its report. It examined, in particular, the governance structures within Northern Ireland Water and how they related to the Department of Regional Development, the parent department in the North.

It found there were a lot of deficiencies in the relationship between Northern Ireland Water and the Department of Regional Development. What happened locally in response to the freeze, in terms of solving problems for consumers, was not worse than what happened here. What was found to be poor in all the reviews that were carried out was the manner in which information was managed and communicated to consumers over the period. I am not claiming that our local authorities or the Department were 100% efficient in how we managed the situation, but we did a lot better than Northern Ireland in terms of handling the issue.

On some of the other questions raised, the issue of 6% versus 2% or 3%, the 6% figure quoted by Professor Johnson refers to 6% of the total rainfall on the Shannon catchment. The figures of 2% to 3% quoted by Dublin City Council refer to the percentage of the low flow in the Shannon that would be abstracted. That is not to say that it would not be abstracted at times of low flow because that is what is provided for by the storage. The equivalent of 2% to 3% of the low flow would be abstracted but only at times when there was sufficient flow in the Shannon above the current low flow that would allow that to be abstracted. As we all know, flooding is a significant issue across the Shannon for several months of the year and it is during those times sufficient water would be abstracted and put into storage at Garryhinch.

Chairman

The extraction point on the Shannon is further down the river. If 2% was extracted further up the river one would take out of more than one would further down the river.

Mr. Gerry Galvin

Therefore, a larger catchment is proposed. Deputy Stanley referred to DBOs. Our experience of them has been very good from a number of points of view. In terms of cost savings and value for money, we have achieved savings of between 15% and 20% in capital costs depending on the size of the project. We have also achieved cost savings of 10% to 15% on the operational side. A number of our DBOs have been in place since 2002 and 2003. We have almost ten years experience of the operation of such schemes. They are all compliant with discharge standards because contractors are under penalty in their contracts. If they do not comply, they are penalised and payments are deducted from them.

They allow for single point responsibility for design, construction and operation, unlike the design and build model. If one decides on a design and build contract, there is a tendency to get the cheapest solution which may not last 20 years. One will get the cheapest equipment because the contractor is only interested in installing it until he or she leaves the site, leaving the local authority to carry the risk for the remaining 20 years. In a DBO contract the contractor is responsible for the performance of the equipment for 20 years. Such contracts also provide for a capital replacement fund to replace major items of equipment during the 20 year period at the price tendered initially.

In terms of the operational cost risk, a contractor is only reimbursed for a cost escalation on the basis of the consumer price index, regardless of energy costs. The contractor has to carry, through greater efficiencies, any energy or chemical cost increases.

With regard to asbestos cement pipes, I do not believe there is any risk to water quality from them because of the manner in which they were procured and manufactured in Ireland. In Ireland, asbestos was bound in cement and pipes were always lined with bitumen, unlike many other European countries. The asbestos is not exposed to water.

On the risks to aquifers, I referred to the environmental risk associated with abstracting from an aquifer. The same risk can affect ground water or another habitat because of the influence to which Professor Johnson referred and the connection between ground and surface water in this country. The most famous example was the Kildare bypass and its impact on Pollardstown Fen when the ground water that would have to be dewatered during the construction of the bypass and afterwards would affect water quality in the habitat. It illustrates that there are environmental risks from the drop in water levels arising from water abstractions.

On flood protection and the issues that arose along the Shannon basin and the flooding of certain water treatment plants, we have, in conjunction with the County and City Managers Association and local authorities, examined what flood prevention works are necessary to safeguard water treatment plants and ensure what happened in Cork city on the Lee Road does not happen again. We funded works to minimise a recurrence of what happened.

We have also examined other plants such as Ballinasloe and Carrick-on-Shannon to mitigate the risk of flooding affecting them again. The Office of Public Works is the lead agency responsible for flooding and flood protection. Our involvement has only been in flood protection for water services facilities operated by local authorities.

Ms Maria Graham

Deputy Kitt asked a question on the group water sector which is divided between those that are supplied from public supplies and private schemes which have their own treatment networks. He asked about their relationship with Irish Water. They own their own assets. The question, therefore, is how they relate to it rather than being subsumed into an organisation. Over the past decade, group water schemes have sought to be taken over by local authorities, a situation which will continue.

The relationship between the group water sector and local authorities could be characterised under three headings: financing; supervision of the sector, a role similar to that of the EPA; and mentoring. The EPA supervises the entirety of that and there is a mentoring role. Rural water liaison officers work closely with group water schemes. We have to look at how those relationships will continue into the future with Irish Water.

As regards financing, we are looking at the sizeable investment that has gone into this sector. Almost €1 billion has gone into the rural water sector, largely the group water sector, over the past 11 years. We are working with the national rural water services committee on a rural water investment strategy for the future, which is focused on water in the rural environment and on how the investment can be sustained. All those things go into the mix of what has to be rolled out for the future.

Deputy Michael P. Kitt

Will grants still be available for group water schemes from the water company, the Department or the local authority? Has that been worked out yet?

Ms Maria Graham

There are two components to financing the group water sector. There are capital grants which are associated with the investment strategy and looking at the rural water environment in an holistic way. In some areas there are many group water schemes, while in other areas there are public schemes. As Mr. Dara Lynott said earlier, getting clean water is the objective irrespective of who is providing it. The other component is subsidies, which the group water sector gets to ensure that there is parity of treatment between themselves and domestic users. That is to cover the domestic costs of the group water sector. That parity of treatment must be considered in looking at water charges in future.

Chairman

Where do the group water schemes lie in the context of Irish Water? I can understand why the EPA would have a relationship in terms of monitoring them to ensure their design quality is in place. Will Irish Water have some oversight of group water schemes? Will it be the capital funder of them or will much of that operation remain with the local authorities?

Ms Maria Graham

The assessment has to take account of all those matters from the perspective of financing and supervision. The assessment is considering what the structure should be, what local authority functions should go to Irish Water, and what is the most effective way.

Chairman

Is it part of the assessment?

Ms Maria Graham

It is part of the assessment.

Deputy Marcella Corcoran Kennedy

I asked a question earlier about whether water was being regarded as a commodity and not a resource in terms of people being able to harvest water and sell it on. I am thinking of what is happening with electricity. If one generates some electricity, one can use what one wants and then sell it into the national grid. Has such an idea been examined for water?

Mr. Gerry Galvin

No, because the programme for Government has stated that water provision will remain in public ownership. What the Deputy mentioned would involve a form of privatisation where a private supplier would extract, treat and make water available to a local authority. That would be a form of privatisation. The Government has made it clear, however, that privatisation is not on the agenda.

Dr. Paul Johnston

Members of the committee might remember that a few years ago there was an attempt to commercialise the water in Lough Corrib and sell it in tankers to the Middle East. That is history, however. As regards some questions that were raised earlier, Mr. Galvin mentioned the percentage of abstraction. I was looking at it purely from a resource viewpoint - the overall catchment rather than from the actual flow in the River Shannon, but the two figures are compatible. The overall catchment does not necessarily drain all through the Shannon; it can come as ground water as well. The amount that is being abstracted is relatively small, provided the distribution is right in time.

A Deputy also asked about risks to aquifers. I wish to clarify this point. The two major risks to aquifers in ground water are from excessive abstraction and chemical effects, or quality aspects. The excessive abstraction only applies to a couple of aquifers. One was the famous one at the Kildare bypass, which was a problem of quantity, not quality. It was the fact that the water levels were being lowered even temporarily which caused a problem with the habitat. The other aquifer that is at risk from an abstraction viewpoint is, ironically, the one in north Meath, in association with dewatering that is going on, mainly by quarries and cement factories. That has had a big impact on excessive abstraction. It is well known and documented in the vulnerability maps.

In terms of quality, the major threats to groundwater and aquifers arise in part from agriculture - the problems of nitrates and phosphorous in groundwater in certain areas, although not in all areas by any means. It is in certain areas where there is free-draining land. Second, there is pathological contamination which is listed in the EPA reports. Biological contamination arises in part potentially from septic tanks and farming practice. Ironically, however, in many cases it is from poor management of wells which are not well constructed. That is quite often the cause of some of the problems. There are isolated issues associated with things like old dumps, to which people have referred. Those are the principal threats to the aquifers.

Deputy James Bannon

I see logic in having the agriculture and environment committees united because their work overlaps a lot. We should be requesting that.

Chairman

We are not putting three committees together. My job is busy enough.

Deputy James Bannon

The REP scheme was discontinued and replaced by the AEOS. Perhaps our guests have a view on that. The REP scheme was hugely beneficial to this country in that it cleaned up farming. The scheme should be reinvented. The AEOS is fine but it is more concerned with tree planting. The REP scheme dealt with the whole issue of farm pollution. It was co-financed by the EU and should be reintroduced. What is the panel's view on that?

Mr. Dara Lynott

The REP scheme is there and it is under an agricultural scheme. Many of the best guidance practices were made by Teagasc and when they were applied, they were of benefit. The discussion has moved on and now concerns how to tie all forms of European financing terms into compliance with a slew of regulations. Part of that has been the cross-compliance scheme that is currently in operation. What I am hearing in Europe is that they are moving more towards that area. I cannot say whether the REP scheme will continue in its current form.

Mr. O'Leary will deal with some of the points concerning group water schemes, including numbers, quality and location.

Mr. Gerard O’Leary

I think a question was asked about quality and excessive chlorine. I will briefly touch on that. As Mr. Lynott mentioned earlier, the EPA publishes an annual drinking water report. Within the next month we will have our latest report on water quality. They are always available on our website and on the Dáil committee record also. I only have one copy here.

Chairman

In the EPA presentation, Mr. O'Leary gave us a commitment to forward the report to the committee.

Mr. Gerard O’Leary

Yes, I can do that. We have about 250,000 test results each year. That comes from a European directive that is set out in national regulations. We analyse the data opposite 48 drinking water standards. We then take it to the next level and analyse it according to the different categories of supply. We look at public water supplies and private schemes. We broke those out within the last ten years. On analysis, we discovered a difference in quality such that the group water schemes were, unfortunately, poor relations of the public water schemes. In our presentation, we differentiated between large and smaller public water supplies. In recent years, we have been benchmarking the large public water supplies, particularly against those of England and Wales because those countries have very strongly regulated drinking water sectors. Our large public water supplies are very close to being of the equivalent standard microbiologically. At the back of the report, we have a county-by-county analysis in this regard. This will be available to members.

With regard to sampling, monitoring and excessive amounts of chlorine, chorine is not water-soluble and eventually clears from the water. Chlorine kills bugs and stops people becoming sick. It is a vital part of the treatment of water. Since it separates from water very quickly, it must be added at the treatment plant and it must be ensured that the last person on the supply line has an adequate level. There is a balancing act to be done. If one does not get it right, the people at the start of the supply line will have more chlorine than those at the end. We have done significant work in this area, with funding from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. Key monitoring equipment is in place for every single public water supply in the country. In 2008, it was in place for only 40% of public water supplies. We hope the right dose of chlorine is being added. It is a skill and operator training is required. Many of the operators are very dedicated to their work.

Disinfection is very important in schemes. There have been a few famous cases, one in particular in Canada, where ill health was caused when a caretaker lowered the volume of chlorine because residents were giving out about it. It is a challenge to get the level right but the World Health Organization states there should be no compromise on chlorine because it comprises a significant part of the treatment process if the correct amount is added.

Chairman

I thank the delegates for assisting us in our deliberations today. The committee will continue to work on this matter over the coming months. It is expected that the committee's final report and recommendations will be laid before the Houses at some time in the new year.

The joint committee adjourned at 5.05 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 15 November 2011.