Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

This is possibly the biggest infrastructure project in the history of the State. It is right that the committee should try to scrutinise it to the greatest possible extent. We all want to do the right thing in our engagements here and with the various parties involved and we are approaching it on that basis. I acknowledge the extent to which Mr. Grant, Mr. Quinn and their staff have made themselves available to us, both during the consultation and outside of it. I also acknowledge the amount of work which Ms Kennedy has put into this. While there has been extensive consultation, the volume of which I do not criticise, there is always the difficulty that, because both Deputies and members of the public do not have the level of expertise which the professionals do, we are always at a disadvantage regardless of the volume of consultation. Therefore having somebody who is able to bring at least some technical expertise to the debate is helpful. Whatever Ms Kennedy's view of this project is, it should be welcomed.

I absolutely agree with the need to diversify the water supplies into Dublin and the Dublin region and I am convinced that we need to increase the supply. I just want to say that at the start. However, I continue to have significant questions about the project which I do not think have been fully answered. I will run through those questions now so that folks can answer them.

If I can direct some questions relating to Irish Water to Mr. Grant, the first thing is that our understanding when making our submissions last year was that Irish Water would announce its final preferred option around this time last year and that it would move to planning sometime around September, so there has been about a year of a delay. We understand that part of that is the delay in the legislation around water extraction licensing, but we have also heard many rumours about disagreements between the Department and Irish Water over aspects of the project. First of all I would like Mr. Grant to explain the nature of the delay. Also, given the fact that we do not even have heads of a Bill in respect of that extraction legislation, even if Irish Water goes ahead with planning, how does Mr. Grant see the timeline of the project being affected by legislation on which it is dependent, which will be very controversial in itself?

I have a difficulty with the use of the word "demand". I know it is one of these smaller issues but "demand" suggests the volume of water that people need and use, but we know the demand also includes the 200 Ml or so lost to leaks. It is important to say that at the start. I am interested in whether Irish Water has costs for that leakage, whether annual costs or otherwise. How much is it costing Irish Water to lose that volume of water annually, because it is important for us to factor in those costs when looking at the overall cost effectiveness of the project?

I am also very concerned at the volume of water. If the project goes ahead and if water starts being pumped from Parteen Weir up to the Dublin and midlands region, how much of that water will be lost both from 2021, when it would begin, and up to 2051? My estimates are that at least half of it will be lost at the outset and that by the end approximately 44% of it will be lost. I hear everything Mr. Grant is saying about leaks but again, for the ordinary person in the street, the idea that €1.3 billion would be spent but that at the end of the project 44% of the water pumped from one part of the country to another would be lost into the system is hard for people to understand. First of all are my figures correct? If not, can Mr. Grant correct them? Will he respond to that issue?

In terms of pipe replacement, nobody has ever come here and said that we need a short quick burst. Everybody understands that replacing the pipe system, particularly in the city of Dublin but even in the surrounding counties, will take time. This project however, will take us through to 2021 and 2051. It is again difficult for us to accept that programme cannot be accelerated. I know Irish Water is constrained by the capital investment which the Government has given it.

I have asked this question before but I will ask it again. If the Government was to say that it was going to provide an extra €100 million, €150 million or €200 million per year to accelerate leakage detection and pipe replacement, could it be used? The witness has told me previously that it could not be used. Perhaps he could explain to the committee why that is the case.

A picture of a street was presented among the slides. The word "disingenuous" is unfair but it is certain that the picture presents a worst-case scenario. Most likely, it depicts a street right in the centre of Dublin city near Temple Bar. I accept that there are greater complexities in those areas. However, we are also talking about many residential areas which, I presume, would not involve the same levels of complexity. I do not want the witness to think that anyone on this committee believes that pipes can be fixed overnight. If the Government had the political will to provide the funding, surely that could be accelerated.

I am concerned that, rather than accelerating leakage detection and pipe replacement, we might see a slowing down of the process in the context of the comments Irish Water made when we were considering the revised drinking water directive. During that discussion, the company's representatives said that if additional requirements on capital investment were necessary to meet the requirements of that directive it might mean leak detection and water saving initiatives are reduced.

Can the witnesses discuss aquifers in more detail? In my submission, I made clear that my main concern is that the report on which Irish Water based comments dates back to 2008. I am not in any way qualified to comment on whether what has just been said is correct but it seems that a 2008 report could be updated. Has any consideration been given, as I suggested a year ago, to updating the report?

I am not a mathematician or an expert. However, I have listened to two very intelligent people who have put a lot of work into their facts and figures and who are telling me two completely contrasting things. I simply do not have the ability to adjudicate. It seems that the suggestion that there be an independent assessment of those claims is very sensible. If the witnesses are as confident as they say they are that their mathematics are correct and that Ms Kennedy's report is wrong, then surely an independent assessment, given the scale of this project and the money involved, would be a sensible course of action.

In terms of broader escalating costs, this State has a history of beginning projects with projected costs and finishing them with significantly different costs. I refer, for example, to the national children's hospital and the Dublin Port tunnel. How confident are the witnesses that €1.3 billion is the maximum amount required? What can they say to reassure us that we are not going to have a repeat of previous episodes?

Ms Kennedy has made very big claims. I have spoken to many water engineers who are not Irish Water staff, some of whom are quite critical of that body. Those people accept the need not just for diversification but for increased supply. Why does Ms Kennedy believe that the committee should accept her arguments and not those of Irish Water, which has skin in the game, and water engineers who are working - day in and day out - on the water crisis in Dublin? Why should we believe Ms Kennedy as opposed to those people? Can Ms Kennedy give us her response to Irish Water's comments in terms of the repair timeline and the example of London? I know she has a different view on that. Can she respond to Mr. Grant's comments on the groundwater issue and whether aquifers could provide at least some of the additional supply?