Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Wednesday, 22 February 2017

Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Future Funding of Domestic Water Services

Public Water Forum

1:30 pm

Ms Maria Graham:

The data we get from the group water sector is on claims of the subsidy but not on overall operational cost profiles. We have some information on groups which receive capital grants. We do not have an overall perspective on these costs for the sector. We did some work on a survey with the federation when we were looking at reducing the charges. It surveyed a number of its sector members. Based on that pre-January 2014 survey, the average charge for people on the public source group water schemes was €38.79. I give this figure with caution because I do not know whether farm or other usage was included. The private source was €60.50 and the average cost of all schemes based on an average household size of 2.7 was €52.88. This was in the context of reducing the subsidy. When we reduced the subsidy it brought the average to €92.29, which was broadly where the average charge from Irish Water would be because these are water only charges. This is why we were trying to get to an equitable position.

I recognise the Deputy has asked a number of parliamentary questions on this issue. In any of the discussions the only figure we can give is with regard to the subsidy from this perspective. The point I made earlier was we have had a relationship for a period of time with the group water sector with regard to funding it. This has included times where there were charges and no charges. This is the regime it has been happy and satisfied with. When there were no domestic charges this was the subsidy regime. Clearly, the subsidies must be kept under review in light of the costs being faced, but we have not had a demand for a significant revision in the subsidy. In fact, most of the demand has been on the multiannual capital programme, and the inclusion of issues such as source protection, water conservation and such issues, the rationalisation of schemes to give them a better cost structure, the appointment of quality officers and a number of softer measures with regard to involving professionals. These are the areas of funding they have tended to examine. I suggest it needs to be examined in the round.