NFGWS submission on
the proposed establishment of Irish Water and the
future delivery of rural water services
as part of the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government
public consultation process
24 February 2012
NFGWS
24 Old Cross Square
Monaghan
Tel: 047 72766
Web: www.nfgws.ie
Page
ii
General contents:
Page 1
Foreword
Page 3
Introduction
Page 5
Section I – response to DECLG position paper and PwC report
Page 17 Section II – the Irish group water scheme sector:
a vital partner in the future delivery of rural water services
Page 37
Section III – the National Federation of Group Water Schemes:
its role in the water services sector
Page
iii
Page
iv
Foreword:
The 15th anniversary of the formation of our Federation in 1997 coincides with the public consultation process
regarding the proposed establishment of Irish Water, arguably the most profound development in the management
of public water and wastewater services since the foundation of the State. This consultation involved, inter alia,
direct discussions between the full NFGWS Board and a delegation of senior officials from the DECLG on 13
February. We appreciate the speed with which the DECLG responded to our invitation and the positive and constructive approach taken to the many issues raised by Board members.
Given the breathtaking pace of transformation in the rural water sector in recent years, the NFGWS is delighted to
present this submission as an earnest of our commitment to positively addressing and engaging with any proposals that have the potential to further improve the framework within which rural water services are delivered.
While not directly impacting on the group water scheme sector (other than in terms of regulatory supervision), the
proposals surrounding the establishment of Irish Water may potentially impact on the partnership arrangements
established under the Rural Water Programme between the Minister and his Department, the group water scheme
(GWS) sector and Local Government.
The GWS sector and county councils have developed a close association over the years and this association goes
beyond the regulatory function of the councils as supervisory authorities to the sector. This relationship has been an
important factor in the delivery and improvement of rural water services across the country. The interaction between
county councils and the GWS sector encompasses all activities including strategic planning and the prioritising and
delivery of capital investment projects (with valuable input from County Rural Water Monitoring Committees).
County councils also play a key role in administering payments towards GWS operational expenses. Group water
schemes will be anxious to learn how these relationships and supports are to be continued following the establishment of Irish Water. For publicly-sourced group water schemes there is the additional issue of procuring their water
supply from a new entity.
Whatever arrangements are agreed, it is imperative that they protect the massive investment of recent years and
ensure that there is continued forward momentum to what has already been achieved.
For our part, the National Federation of Group Water Schemes has always believed that, given relatively modest
financial support, in addition to training and mentoring, the community-owned and community-run rural water sector is capable of delivering a professional and quality service. We believe that we are well on the way to turning that
belief into reality, thanks in particular to the efforts of our dedicated Board, management, staff and the committees
of our many group water schemes.
The fact that our partners under the Rural Water Programme have shown confidence in our ability to do the job has
also been a critical factor in our success to date. Indeed, partnership has been at the heart of our many successes,
including inter alia the successful disposal of the ECJ case against Ireland Inc. without the imposition of substantial
fines. Therefore, we fully expect that the partnership with the Minister and the DECLG will continue.
As we enter a new phase in the story of the rural water sector, it would be remiss of us if we failed to acknowledge
the many individuals in the DECLG, the National Rural Water Services Committee, the Water Services Training
Group, the Environmental Protection Agency and in Local Authorities the length and breadth of the country with
whom it has been our pleasure to do business.
Page
1
We look forward to welcoming Irish Water as a new pillar of this partnership (if that is what is intended) and will
do all in our power to engage in and facilitate the process of change that is envisaged.
Above all, in the context of ongoing funding and support for the Rural Water Programme, we give a commitment
that the NFGWS and our affiliated group water schemes will continue to deliver real value for money and that the
quality assurance and rights-based approach to water services delivery will be consolidated and built upon in the
years ahead.
Brendan O’Mahony
Chairperson
National Federation of Group Water Schemes
24 February 2012
Page
2
Introduction:
The National Federation of Group Water Schemes (NFGWS) accepts the PwC recommendation and the government’s decision to leave the GWS sector as a stand-alone entity. We believe that this recommendation is an
acknowledgement of the valuable contribution played by the GWS sector in the social and economic development
of many rural communities, a contribution that is underpinned by the voluntary commitment of individuals and
committees the length and breadth of Ireland.
Building on this tradition of voluntarism, the GWS sector has proven its capacity to adapt, to rationalise where
required and to introduce professional standards in their operations, not least in terms of implementation of water
safety planning from source to tap.
This increasing professionalism has been enabled by the commitment of the Minister and his Department – and the
Local Authorities – to work in partnership with the GWS sector under the Rural Water Programme (RWP) and to
ensure that there is targetted financial investment in place, as well as operational supports. We believe that these
supports continue to be of critical importance to sustaining the progress that has been made to date and in continuing to build a rural water services infrastructure and service fit for the 21st century. Therefore, we are convinced
that any approach to a reorganisation in water services must take account the following points:
.
1. The rural sector is now largely “fixed” and is working as it should be (ref. EPA reports and the successful outcome to the ECJ case against Ireland Inc.).
2. The State will, under EU Drinking Water Directives, continue to be answerable for rural supplies to
the EU Commission and the EU Court of Justice.
3. Our partnership approach with government and the LAs has delivered on its strategic objectives in that
rural dwellers now accept and agree on the need for stringent quality and conservation measures,
including universal metering and usage-based charging, rationalisation, good corporate governance,
etc.
4. The outworking of the RWP and the experience of the GWS sector can be used as models of “best
practice”, informing decisions in the wider water services sector.
5. The GWS sector (and conversely the proposed Irish Water) can be used to “benchmark” progress,
innovative changes and economies and to assist in on-going improvements in both urban and rural
supplies.
6. The continued operation of the GWS sector in addition to Irish Water will avoid a total monopoly of
the water services sector in Ireland.
7. Waste water facilities (e.g. septic tanks) in rural areas might best be organised and (where necessary)
remediated on a ‘group’ and ‘bundle’ basis through the structures developed by the GWS sector.
Page
3
Page
4
The National Federation of Group Water Schemes
Section I
Response to DECLG position Paper and PwC report regarding;
1.
2.
3.
The creation of Irish Water as a state Public Water Utility Company taking over the
water investment and maintenance programmes of the 34 county and city councils
The introduction of a fair funding model to deliver clean and reliable water, including proposals to install water meters in households.
Moving to a charging system that is based on use above a free allowance.
response to DECLG position paper and PwC report
Page
5
Contents:
Page 7
Summary position
Page 9
The creation of Irish Water
Page 11 The introduction of a fair funding model
Page 12 Future capital funding of the GWS sector
Page 14 Proposal to install water meters in households
Page 14 Future operational funding of the GWS Sector
Page 15 NFGWS position on the future funding of the GWS sector
Page
6
The National Federation of Group Water Schemes
Summary position
• The success of the Rural Water Programme has been dependent on the partnership agreed and fostered
between the Minister/DECLG and the GWS/NFGWS – with the programme delivered through the LA network. The sector expects that partnership to be honoured now through this proposed re-organisation.
• The RWP has delivered massive improvement in infrastructure, organisation, management, governance and
service. This was helped, in no small way, through the “public service ethos” of the LAs and the partnership
approach in their dealings with the sector.
• This model must be protected and nurtured and it must form an integral part of the “end result”. This requires
a continuation of the existing dedicated and resourced Rural Water Sections.
• On-going consultation with the NFGWS will be required every step of the way.
• The €1bn spent on RWP to date must be protected, sustained and built upon.
• The GWS sector cannot be allowed “slip”. We are all aware of what can happen if ongoing investment, development and improvement is not encouraged and facilitated.
• Capital Grant Aid needs to be continued. The sector needs parity and, in delivering that parity, the differences
between the sectors must be recognised – e.g. substantially more network than public schemes per connection (up to 10 times) and the voluntary and community ethos of the GWS sector.
• GWSs have worked within the policy framework to date. This has resulted in much work being left for
another day in favour of dealing with the quality issue as a priority. Other infrastructural projects now need
to be supported.
• All GWSs must be given the opportunity to universally meter. The sector has driven the metering debate and
all schemes want these essential tools in order to effectively manage their systems and deliver a quality,
sustainable service. If metering of the public schemes is to be funded out of the National Pension Reserve
Fund, similar arrangements must be made for the GWS sector.
• Publicly sourced group water schemes that have expressed an interest in being taken-in-charge must be
facilitated during the transition period.
• GWSs have committed to substantial long term liabilities through the DBO policy – the only option open to
them. These liabilities were undertaken on the understanding and expectation that assistance in the form of
subsidies would remain in place.
• State subsidy towards GWS operational expenditure must remain in place.
• Significant legislative change is to take place in order to give effect to the proposed reorganisation. The
GWS sector must be recognised and protected in this process.
• Any review or amendment of legislation should address short-comings that have been identified in current
water services legislation – such as legal recognition of wayleave agreements.
• The proposed relationships between the GWS sector and the other “actors” (DECLG, IW, EPA, CER, LAs)
are not clearly stated in the published documentation. These need to be developed and expanded through ongoing consultation.
response to DECLG position paper and PwC report
Page
7
• The Water Services ACT 2007 envisaged that Licensing was to be the vehicle of “regulation” for the sector.
This has not been commenced to date. Who will the licensing authority be under the new arrangements?
Would it be appropriate to allocate that function to Irish Water given that many GWSs will be its customers,
while many more might be regarded as “competitors”?
• The area of VAT and water services (particularly as it applies to the GWS sector) needs to be addressed as
part of any reorganisation of the sector.
• The sector has worked hard on achieving its current position – top class service and value for money. It is
an integral and essential part of water services delivery, particularly to rural Ireland. It needs support, mentoring and assistance if it is to continue fulfilling this role on behalf of Ireland Inc.
• Under the Rural Water Programme the NFGWS has an important role in the GWS water services delivery
model and is committed to the improvement and sustainability of the sector (see Section III of this submission). The NFGWS is ready and willing to play a part in this massive undertaking in the interests of ensuring
rural group water schemes and their members are adequately catered for in the newly organised water services delivery model.
• We note the government’s intention “to significantly improve the quality of service, increase the cost efficiency associated with water provision and conserve our national resource.” The GWS sector and the NFGWS
have long been committed to these principles.
Page
8
The National Federation of Group Water Schemes
The creation of Irish Water
From the DECLG Position Paper and based on the PWC report, it is clear that the government has decided to deliver water services into the future as follows:
1. Irish Water – takes full ownership/ responsibility for public water and waste water services
2. Group water scheme sector – retains full ownership/responsibility for rural group water schemes, with State
supports/supervision.
As representatives of the interests of the group water scheme sector, the NFGWS has no great objections to the
above decisions. We welcome the public consultation process and the DECLG’s invitation to the NFGWS to be part
of that public consultation.
These are radical and far-reaching proposals which will have a significant impact on the organisation, management
and delivery of water services. The scale of the proposals will require more than just a six week public consultation.
Regular and on-going consultation and engagement with the key stakeholders will be required at every stage. The
GWS sector – and the NFGWS as the representative organisation – is one such stakeholder. We would welcome and,
indeed, expect ongoing consultation during the implementation phase.
The GWS sector has flourished and developed over the past number of years through the Rural Water Programme
and a key driver in this has been the partnership and trust that was established in the late 1990s and built on since
then. The sector expects that partnership to be honoured now through this proposed re-organisation.
The GWS sector is, at present, inextricably linked with the local authorities regarding the delivery of rural water
services.
• Local authorities have been the main point of contact for group water schemes for the past 15 years through
the Rural Water Programme (RWP).
• The RWP has delivered massive improvement in infrastructure, organisation, management, governance and
service. This was helped, in no small way, through the “public service ethos” of the LAs and the partnership
approach in their dealings with the sector.
• Under the Drinking Water Regulations, LAs are currently the supervisory authorities with respect to the GWS
sector.
• In the case of the publicly sourced group water schemes, the Local Authority provides the source of water
supply.
• In practical terms, all GWS works of a capital nature must be approved by the relevant LA, while any new
group schemes or extensions to existing schemes must be approved by their LA and be in accordance with
county strategic plans.
• Most importantly of all, from the GWS perspective, the financial supports by way of capital grant aid and subsidies are approved and paid through the LAs.
It is imperative that, in any general re-organisation of water services delivery, the importance and value of this relationship and interaction between the Local Authorities and the GWS sector is recognised and adequately catered for.
All of the functions now carried out by LAs with regard to the GWS sector must be carried forward into any new organisational structure. The DECLG position paper and PwC report make some references to this aspect of transition but
both lack specific details.
PwC and the DECLG position paper make the following comments regarding the future relationships between the
GWS sector and other actors in water services delivery;
response to DECLG position paper and PwC report
Page
9
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The position and role of the group water schemes would change in that the roles currently played by the local
authorities would have to be reallocated.
Irish Water would also assume the current role of local authorities in assisting, including financially, the sector to address quality deficiencies in both publicly and privately sourced group water schemes.
It is recognised that retention of the local touch which local authorities can offer today, including liaison with
group water schemes, will be an important element of implementation.
Irish water will be responsible for bulk water provision to the group water sector.
The Environmental Protection Agency would be the environmental and technical regulator for Irish Water,
and it would also become the regulator for group water schemes, a role currently played by the local authorities.
The regulatory function would pass to the EPA although the EPA may request that Irish Water execute some
aspects of regulation on its behalf.
EPA may request Irish Water or even, in some circumstances, albeit limited, the local authorities to execute
some aspects of regulation on its behalf.
While it is encouraging to note that some thought has been given to how the GWS sector will fit into a re-organised
water services model, these comments are rather vague and subject to interpretation. Given the unique partnership
that includes the Minister, his Department, the NFGWS and the LAs, an issue arises from the proposed departure
of the LAs from this partnership. Therefore:
• Is it envisaged that the LA’s place in the partnership will transfer to Irish Water?
• What are the arrangements for the payment of financial supports to the GWS sector?
• Local Authorities provide much assistance and support that is informal and has been established over time
and as part of Local Authority “public service ethos”. How will this be provided in the future?
• The proposed changes will have significant implications for publicly sourced group schemes, particularly
those, and there are many, that have a heavy reliance on Local Authority support (management and operational). Is this support/assistance to continue in the Irish Water scenario?
• Who will regulate the price charged to publicly sourced group schemes, taking into account their administration and maintenance costs?
• There are many publicly sourced schemes awaiting take-over by Local Authorities. Will these schemes be
facilitated? Can this be done during the transition period?
• What is the position regarding GWSs now supplying water to Local Authorities?
• Who will the licensing authority for group water schemes be, or is it intended to proceed with licensing?
It is clear that it is not intended that Irish Water will have any responsibility for, or contact with, GWS customers or
households. Consequently, it is reasonable to conclude that the Minister/DECLG will continue to be statutorily
responsible for investing in and supporting the operation of rural water services, with the members of the GWS sector picking up the balances required, as at present. However, there appears to be the intention that Irish Water might
be the grant and subsidy aiding agent for the GWS sector, with the Minister/DECLG recouping such funding to Irish
Water. It also seems to be the intention that DECLG will retain overall responsibility for Water Services Policy
development. The National Rural Water Services Committee has played an important role in assisting with and
advising on the development of such policy in relation to rural water services. It would be important that, in any
reorganisation, this valuable structure is retained.
The NFGWS will want to see certainty on these issues. This certainty will need to be reached at the earliest stage
possible in the implementation/transition phase. It is clear to the NFGWS that a dedicated and fully resourced rural
water structure will be required within Irish Water – if Irish Water is to assume the rural water functions undertaken
by LAs to date. Such a structure should be initiated as part of the establishment of the interim Irish Water Board in
2012. The NFGWS is available to assist with this process.
Page
10
The National Federation of Group Water Schemes
Transition strategy
The DECLG position paper recognises that the proposed public utility model represents a major change with
significant implications for local government, the water industry in Ireland and its many stakeholders. The initial
transition strategy envisages a staged approach, which includes the appointment of an interim board and project
management office in 2012, pending the establishment of Irish Water under its own statute by mid 2013.
In order to ensure that the interests of the GWS sector are recognised and protected – and to ensure the continuity
of effective local service provision, including support of the group water schemes through any transition period –
it will be essential that the sector, through the NFGWS, is part of the transition strategy’s further development and
implementation.
Regional structure
In their assessment of the Public Utility Model for Irish Water, PwC recommended that the utility retain some
regional focus to supervise and support the local customer interface, but also to support river basin management.
The report acknowledges that the theme of a regional structure for some of the operations of Irish Water has been a
consistent part of stakeholder feedback and also proposals for the reorganisation of Irish water services in the past.
If the local authorities are no longer to be involved, the NFGWS would be in support of a regional focus for the
delivery of water services and sees merit in organising those regions along river basin lines. The NFGWS is
already organised on a regional basis with development officers strategically based in centres of significant
GWS presence and activity.
In organising a regional structure, the needs of the GWS sector must be recognised and the following should be
considered;
• A dedicated rural water section at each regional location.
• Regional Rural Water Services Committees that would be organised on lines similar to the current County
Rural Water Services Committees.
The consumer
The PwC report notes that across the local authorities, there is no developed system of redress for the consumer or
consumer charter of rights. There are no statutory rights of appeal nor independent appeals mechanisms.
• The GWS sector has a very well developed “Charter of Rights and Responsibilities” that includes a complaints and appeals procedure involving County Rural Water Monitoring Committees.
• Co-operative GWS have the benefits of rules and community/member involvement and engagement.
The introduction of a fair funding model
The DECLG position paper and the PwC report acknowledge that there has been a substantial and historic under-investment in water and wastewater services in Ireland. They also recognise that while there has been significant investment in
the last decade, a recent review of investment in water services carried out by DECLG indicates that there is still a substantial backlog of capital investment. The documentation sets out the objectives of the reform programme including;
• Financially sustainable water services
• Improving Ireland’s water services infrastructure
• Ensuring environmental standards
• Delivering improved outcomes for customers
• Implementing strong governance with clear accountabilities
• Supporting other aspects of water reform in Ireland
• Promoting efficiency
response to DECLG position paper and PwC report
Page
11
The NFGWS fully supports any model of water provision based on principles of parity, fairness and equity and
recognises the importance of implementing strategies towards financial and environmental sustainability and
accountability in the water services sector. We are committed to this model and to similar objectives within our own
sector and – with the assistance provided under the Rural Water Programme – have already completed major infrastructural investment programmes based on objective need (and offering excellent value for money), while also putting in place a rights-based approach to the delivery of a quality water service.
Given the unique characteristics of the sector, we are convinced that an ongoing commitment of State capital investment will be required by group water schemes if they are to survive.
Future capital funding of the GWS sector
Due to its rural base, serving a widely dispersed population, the GWS infrastructure, and in particular its pipe network is geographically vast in comparison to the public water network.
Since its beginnings in the early 1960s the sector has relied heavily on capital grant aid for its initial establishment
and for its survival.
Following the major push to provide rural Ireland with a piped water supply through the 1970s and early 1980s, the
GWS sector was fairly much left to its own devices, relying on member subscriptions for its operational expenditure and, for the most part, with little or no asset renewal taking place. Operational costs were kept to a minimum
with a heavy reliance on voluntary input from committees/members. Maintenance costs were also kept as low as
possible, meaning that, in the main, only essential maintenance was undertaken.
In the late 1990s, when the sector came under the spotlight from a quality perspective and when the GWSs of the
country began to organise themselves nationally through the NFGWS, it quickly became apparent that a major
catch-up exercise was required from the point of view of capital investment in infrastructural renewal and replacement as well as the provision of water treatment solutions.
The Rural Water Programme of Investment, negotiated with the NFGWS on behalf of group water schemes and
delivered through the partnership approach adopted (GWS/NFGWS, DECLG and LAs), has made a significant
impact on the sector. The €900m invested under the programme since its commencement is a clear indication of the
level of effort and commitment required in order to address historic under-investment and to move the sector
towards achieving the high regulatory standards demanded of it. The €900m was largely supplemented with local
contributions from the GWS members that benefited from upgrading projects.
Under the terms of the programme, capital grant aid was capped at 85% of approved cost and 100% of some treatment equipment – subject to a maximum of €6,475 per household under phase 1, dealing with water treatment and
initial critical/essential network improvements. As part of DBO arrangements, provision has also been made for
funding towards scheduled capital replacement of contractually agreed items as set out in the DBO contracts. The
RWP also recognises that additional network renewal and replacement is required in the sector and it makes provision for a further Phase 2 of capital grant aid, again capped at 85% of approved cost and 100% of some treatment equipment – subject to a maximum of €6,475 per household. In all instances the membership of the GWS contributed
significant amounts to the capital upgrade programmes (up to €1,200 per household). In many situations the level
of grant aid available was insufficient to deliver up-grade programmes and the relevant GWSs had to avail of additional top-up funding through CLÁR.
Page
12
The National Federation of Group Water Schemes
The PwC report and DECLG position paper regarding the establishment of Irish Water envisages the public utility company becoming self financing over time. The reports outline that the public water network extends to some
25,000 km with a total of 1.52 million customers/connections (1.32million domestic and 200,000 non-domestic).
This equates to 60.8 customers/connections per km or 16.4 km of per 1000 connections. The reports also predict
that there will be a constant requirement of €600m per annum of capital expenditure required across the public
water and wastewater infrastructure. Assuming half of this amount is applied to the potable water service a total
of €12,000 per km of network will be required each year (€300m / 25,000 km). This equates to €197.37 per customer per annum across the 1.52 million customers on the public water network.
Category of
Scheme
No. of
Schemes
No. of
Members /
Connections
km of
Mains
km per 1,000
Members /
Connections
Members /
Connections
Per km
Source
NFGWS
Survey of
387 GWSs
nationally
–
February
2012
Private GWS
317
64,788
10,220
158
6
All GWS
387
72,411
11,179
154
6
Public GWS
Public Schemes
70
952
7,623
1,520,000
959
25,000
126
16.4
Table illustrating disparity between PWS and GWS Networks
8
61
PwC –
published
January
2012
An NFGWS survey of 387 group water schemes across all counties has shown that their networks extend to some
11,179 km with a total of 72,411 members/connections. This equates to just 6 members/connections per km or 154 km
per 1,000 members/connections (a tenfold contrast to the public schemes).
Obviously the infrastructure of the GWS sector will also need to be renewed and replaced on an ongoing basis. If
we apply the same capital expenditure requirement of €12,000 per annum per km of network to the GWS situation,
GWS members would be levied with €2,000 each per annum purely to cater for capital expenditure requirements.
The above comparison clearly demonstrates that the rural GWS position is entirely different to the public scheme
situation with regard to capital requirements. While the members of Group Water Schemes are well used to contributing to costs and are willing to continue in that way, the GWS sector can never be in the position of becoming
self-financing from a capital cost requirement point of view. The future of the GWS sector, regardless of how water
services provision is organised nationally, will continue to require substantial capital grant aid if it is to maintain an
essential water service for its members and to meet the regulatory standards demanded of it.
In any re-organisation of the water services sector, it is absolutely essential that the Rural Water Programme is maintained, managed and publicly financed as at present. The programme must be supported with a dedicated national
and regional structure in order to ensure that it continues to deliver value for money and efficiency for this essential actor in the water services sector.
response to DECLG position paper and PwC report
Page
13
Proposal to install water meters in households
Water metering and water charges
•
•
•
•
•
•
The GWS sector and the NFGWS have always advocated universal metering as the only way of effectively/
efficiently managing a water supply service.
The GWS sector has been to the forefront of universal water metering initiatives.
Metering has played an important role in the successful transformation of the rural water services sector.
Meters are only the tools – they must be used
— Charging on the basis of volumetric usage is now being implemented across the DBO/GWS sector.
Group water schemes that have yet to be assisted with universal metering projects must be included – they
want to do it.
A recent NFGWS survey of 387 GWSs nationally has shown that 10% of GWS connections are un-metered
as illustrated below.
Category of
Scheme
No. of
Schemes
Private GWS
317
All GWS
Public Schemes
Public GWS
No. of
No. of
% of GWS
Members/
GWS
Universally
Connections Universally Metered
Metered
64,788
201
63
387
72,411
243
63
952
1,520,000
0
70
7,623
42
% of Members
/Connections
NOT Metered
60
0
9
21
10
86
Source
NFGWS
Survey of
387 GWSs
nationally
–
February
2012
PwC –
published
January
2012
Table illustrating extent of metering on GWS networks - assums that all 1.32m households on public water supplies require meters
Moving to a charging system that is based on use above a free allowance
•
Free Allowance:
• A free allowance (per household) is in operation across universally metered group water schemes.
• No fixed or standing charge is levied.
• This model is working well and has contributed to significant reductions in water demand.
• There is no great demand for higher allowances for larger occupancy houses.
• Close to 100% successful collection is being achieved.
Future operational funding of the GWS sector
Subsidy A: funding towards the general operational and management costs of group water schemes:
Although introduced to provide parity for the GWS sector in the context of free domestic water in public supplies,
the operational subsidy has always been an incentive to innovation and good practice within the GWS sector. As
such, entitlement to subsidy payments is conditional (as per the Explanatory Memorandum: subsidy towards the
operational costs of group water schemes). It is paid on the basis of actual costs and is capped at a maximum payment per household.
Page
14
The National Federation of Group Water Schemes
In contrast to public schemes, group schemes have a low housing/population density relative to the extent of their networks [See Table page 13], although having equivalent regulatory responsibilities. In this context, Strand A subsidy
payments have become a vital and necessary component of meeting those proportionately more onerous GWS operational and management costs and, therefore, must be continued. This is particularly important given the need to protect the capital investment programme and the requirements of Quality Assurance as part of Water Safety Planning.
Subsidy B: funding towards bona fide operational and maintenance (O&M) and Design Build Operate
(DBO) contracts: Bearing in mind that the DBO bundling strategy was imposed as the main plank of the upgrade
strategy under the Rural Water Programme, the group water schemes who were persuaded to join DBO projects
(and to set aside their own upgrade plans) were given the clear understanding and assurances that subsidies
towards meeting their contractual obligations to the DBO service operator would be provided for the full duration of the contract and beyond. Consequently, group water schemes have the legitimate “expectation” that this
funding will continue as at present.
NFGWS position on the future funding of the GWS sector
The NFGWS can provide the leadership and training required for the management and delivery of quality drinking
water services by the largely voluntary community owned group water schemes but this very valuable contribution and
effort can only be sustained with the support of state grants and subsidies. Otherwise the huge investment under the RWP
in recent years will be put at risk as rural householders could not be expected to fund the full capital and operational
costs of their water service without assistance. The GWS sector has undergone a major transformation over the past 15
years of the RWP through the dedicated and committed input of the community activists that work tirelessly on their
GWSs and the adoption of a partnership approach with the leadership of the NFGWS, DECLG and LAs.
This transformation has not only taken place with regard to the physical infrastructure of the schemes but in all
aspects of their management and governance. Indeed the GWS sector, with the support and mentoring of the
NFGWS and others has moved a long way towards delivering on the key objectives of the reform programme as
stated above.
None of this transformation could have taken place without the operational and capital expenditure supports provided through the Rural Water Programme. Any diminution or dilution of such State supports would seriously jeopardise the huge progress made under the RWP and result in a “rolling back” of the voluntary input, exposing the sector to certain deterioration in the quality standards painstakingly achieved over recent years. As partners to the successful RWP, the NFGWS cannot countenance such an outcome.
Focussed capital grant aid and an appropriate level of subsidy support must continue for the rural GWS sector if the voluntary community asset is to be maintained and enhanced. The alternative is to risk losing the positive momentum created by the RWP, with group schemes failing to invest in the timely renewal of infrastructure and in quality management.
While the NFGWS recognises the current precarious state of the economy, we believe that any consideration of
“parity” between rural and urban dwellers must take account of the peripherality and remoteness of the areas served
by the rural water sector, as well as the disproportionately long distribution mains and very low housing density that
are a feature of Ireland’s group water schemes.
The co-operation and partnership approach provided for under the Rural Water Programme (and underpinning it) is
based on a commitment to both capital and operational State funding for the GWS sector. That co-operation and
partnership can only survive and develop in the context of reassurance from the Minister and his Department that
funding for the GWS sector will continue into the future.
response to DECLG position paper and PwC report
Page
15
Page
16
The Irish group water scheme sector
Section II
The Irish group water scheme sector:
a vital partner in the future delivery of rural water services
a vital partner in the future delivery of rural water services
Page
17
Contents:
Page 19 Background to drinking water supply in rural Ireland
Page 22 Early management and operation of group water schemes
Page 27 Transformation of the sector
Page 30 DBO bundle strategy
Page 35 Capacity building in the sector
Page
18
The Irish group water scheme sector
Background to drinking water supply in rural Ireland
Until the 1950s piped water supplies were virtually unheard of outside of Ireland’s towns and cities. County Boards
of Health and Public Assistance established in the 1920s had begun the process of providing a public water supply
in rural areas through the erection of village pumps. Under the County Management Act (1940), the functions of
these Boards of Health were transferred to the local authorities and the provision of pumps was gradually extended
to the countryside, with varying degrees of success. Poor siting resulted in waterborne diseases (such as Polio) in
some areas, while other localities endured intermittent supply, especially as wells dried up in the summer months.
The case for communal piped water supplies in rural Ireland was raised in the late 1940s, the then Chief Medical
Advisor, James Deeny, arguing that ‘the provision of piped water and better still a domestic hot water system should
be our first consideration in household planning’. There was growing concern at the social consequences of an inadequate water supply, as the daily drudgery of drawing water supplies in buckets from wells, rivers or lakes was cited
as a reason for a flight from the countryside by young women in particular.
The absence of a reliable and safe water supply had potentially serious economic consequences for rural communities also. Industry, including the emerging tourism sector, required a water services infrastructure that was unavailable outside larger towns and cities.
In 1955 a committee comprising representatives of the Department of Local Government and the Local Sanitary
Authorities carried out a comprehensive assessment of water provision and sewerage services throughout the State.
This committee identified the non-availability of piped water in rural areas as a major unresolved issue that demanded ‘vigorous policies’ that were ‘strongly directed’.
Their conclusions formed the basis of
a strategy inaugurated by government
in 1959. A three-pronged approach
was envisaged:• The provision of regional schemes
by the Sanitary Authorities.
• The provision of group schemes by
local communities where reliable
local sources were available.
• The provision of piped water by
individual householders where
neither of the other approaches
were feasible.
At the beginning of the 1960s, only one
rural home in eight had access to a piped
water supply (generally from a private well
or rainwater collection system). For the
rest of rural homes, the drudgery of drawing water in buckets was part and parcel of
daily life. The best that could be hoped for
was the provision of a community pump by
the county council. However, such pumps
were prone to serious contamination and
represented a health hazard, as in the Polio
outbreak of 1957.
a vital partner in the future delivery of rural water services
Page
19
The group water scheme model had already been introduced in
West Wicklow through the determined efforts of a young Catholic
priest (Fr Joe Collins) who was trained as an engineer. He received
expert help from the Department of Local Government and from
Wicklow County Council. As an earnest of the State’s support for
the initiative, it was decided that individual well grants could be
pooled towards meeting the costs of the project. As these grants
would not meet the full costs of construction, however, Fr Collins
had to harness the voluntary input of the community, in addition to
securing a local financial contribution.
In 1960, as part of government policy to extend piped water supplies
to rural Ireland, a ‘Turn on the Tap’ campaign was launched as an
initiative between the Department of Local Government and the
Irish Countrywomens Association (ICA), mirroring to some extent
the rural electrification campaign begun in the late 1940s. Unlike
rural electrification, however, the campaign to extend piped water
supplies to most rural communities would not be driven by a State
or Semi-State body, but would be a ‘bottom-up’ initiative, relying on
community activists to motivate their neighbours, gather up the necessary funds and provide direct labour, where necessary. In support
of this ‘bottom-up and voluntary activism’, the State adopted the
West Wicklow model, recognising the obvious advantages and
economies in combining individual well grants towards the provision of water to a number of houses from a common source, using
the same reservoir, pumping equipment and pipelines.
Fr Joe Collins who spearheaded the first group water
scheme in Oldcourt, County Wicklow before establishdeveloping several other schemes in the West Wicklow area.
For their part, local authorities would encourage GWS
ment by:
• providing supplies for groups from their own sources.
• taking potential group development into consideration when developing public schemes.
• encouraging the infill of regional schemes by private groups.
Efforts were made to promote the widespread adoption of the GWS model. These included a touring exhibition
launched by the ICA and the release of a short promotional film Water Wisdom at the Cork Film Festival. Rural
water provision even became an issue in the 1961 general election! The scale of the urban/rural divide was stark:
whereas 97% of urban homes had piped water in 1961, only one in eight rural homes had access to running water,
mostly by capturing rainwater (as in East Galway) pumped to a header tank in the attic, or from a private well. A
few years earlier, it was revealed that only 3% of rural dwellers were actually connected to a communal distribution
network.
Surprisingly, there was some opposition to the ‘Turn on the Tap’ campaign, particularly from the National Farmers
Association, representative of stronger farmers who rejected any initiative that might increase the rateable valuation
of property in a period of declining farm incomes. The intention to build large regional schemes ground to a virtual standstill in the face of this opposition and the difficult budgetary situation facing Ireland in the mid 1960s. In the
absence of large regional scheme development, the emerging GWS sector provided the only possibility of resolving
Page
20
The Irish group water scheme sector
the piped water deficit in rural Ireland, but after a spurt in the early years of the decade, the rate of group scheme
construction declined in the late 1960s. By 1971, 42% of rural households still lacked a piped water supply
Entry to the EEC in 1972 transformed the rate of growth within the sector. The standards demanded by Europe, in
addition to improved prices for farm produce, ended opposition to the widespread provision of piped water supplies.
Indeed, farm organisations and co-operatives actively promoted the campaign for rural water and took a lead role in
the formation of group schemes, as well as providing sources (and access to sources) and sites for reservoirs. They
also provided permission for pipes to be laid through fields, thereby greatly reducing the cost of GWS construction.
As a result, the sector flourished in the 1970s, with all but a few of the privately sourced schemes having completed construction by the early 1980s.
‘Those who drink the water should remember those who sunk the well’
Tribute plaque to the late John Flanagan, Tullyallen GWS, County Louth
[Below is an abridged version of an article first published in GWS News, Winter 2005]
In the early summer of 1961,
John Flanagan (a carpet fitter by trade) was digging
within yards of his cottage,
close to the ancient abbey at
Mellifont. He was three feet
down when Fr Leo Dunigan
pulled up in his car and
asked what he was at.
‘Digging for water’, John
replied. ‘Then stop your digging’, the priest said, ‘for
there’s a water meeting
tomorrow night in the hall in
Tullyallen’.
John went to the meeting
and began a life-long commitment to providing a reliable drinking water service
to his own family and to his
wider community.
So he went along to Fr
Dunigan’s first meeting.
Apart from himself and the
priest, three others attended,
Willie Gibney, Seán Tierney
and Larry Coogan.
Over the months the meetings got larger, people coming from all ends of the
parish and from across the
Mattock river in Meath, all
desperate to have a piped
water supply.
As the evenings drew
shorter and the nights colder, they transferred the
meetings to Seán Tierney’s
thatched cottage, only moving back to the hall when
the meetings got too big.
When Fr Dunigan pulled
back from the project, his
place was taken by Pat
McHugh, then manager of
Townley Hall, a landed
estate house owned by TCD:
According to John, Pat
‘pushed the thing along’,
setting up a committee and
arranging a meeting with Mr
Burke from the Department.
Tullyallen
On Mr Burke’s advice the
idea of a parish-wide
scheme was abandoned and
the Tullyallen area began to
organise its own GWS.
Neighbouring communities
at Sheepgrange, Monleek
and Drybridge organised
shortly afterwards.
A £100 grant was available
on each connection (£50
from the Department and
£50 from Louth Co. Co.).
Throughout 1962 the levy
was collected by John and
his colleagues; £14 for a
cottage, £20 for a private
house, £25 for a shop and
£35 for a farm.
Before the year was out,
the levy had been paid on
all of the proposed 55 connections.
Construction
In early 1963 construction
began along the 81/2 mile network. A digger moved ahead
preparing the trench, followed each evening (after
work) by a gang of voluntary
workers – John and his
neighbours – tidying and levelling the trench with shovels. One man, in particular,
stands out in John’s memory:
‘Tom Carry was great at
digging the trench with a
shovel and he would be up
there at 7pm every evening.’
Together
with
Pat
McHugh, John took on to
laying the pipes. Apart from
the 3” main, these were
stuck together with a powerful solvent and ‘after 20
minutes you couldn’t pull
them apart’.
The collars and rings that
joined the 3” main were
more awkward, as they were
all loose and had to be fitted
together with great care.
The pipes were laid on
clay and then sods were
placed on top before the
trench was filled in. Sand
was not used.
During President John F.
Kennedy’s visit to Ireland
in June 1963, the men of
Tullyallen were preparing a
a vital partner in the future delivery of rural water services
trench in the Lynch’s Cross
area.
The President was a month
dead when in December
1963, John Flanagan’s
became the first house on the
scheme to be connected to
the water supply.
Taps
A plumber from Navan connected a few houses, but he
had to be paid and, having
seen how it was done, John
began connecting local
homes, working at night,
under a tilly lamp.
The GWS levy included
the cost of a tap, a Belfast
sink, a gully and lengths of
pipe to carry wastewater
away.
But the Department was
having a rethink about the
taps that might be used.
John recalls:
‘Myself and Pat McHugh
were putting in a meter at the
reservoir. Pat had a bag of
taps in the pick-up.
‘The Department engineer
arrived in the evening and
told us we had to get rid of
the taps as a scheme in Cork
was after collapsing because
people wouldn’t turn the
water off. So we had to
change to push taps which
were a lot dearer!’
Page
21
Early management and operation of group schemes
Most early group water schemes were formed in the groundwater zones of Leinster and Munster; a spring or borehole providing a supply to communities within a defined geographic area. To make the scheme viable, it was important to bring as many households/farm connections on board as possible, but with due regard to the capacity of the
source, pressure within the network and the length of piping required. An active local committee held ‘fireside meetings’ with individual householders to persuade them to join the scheme and to make the necessary payment.
As the sector expanded into the ‘surface water’ zones in the 1970s, schemes tended to be much larger than previously. Given that lakes provided natural raw water reservoirs and that the topography of the western and border
counties facilitated gravity-feeding a water supply to a much wider geographic area than hitherto. Distribution networks were provided to service hundreds of dispersed rural dwellings. Indeed, the onward expansion of schemes
into the most isolated rural communities continued long after their initial completion, accelerating under the Rural
Water Programme in the early 2000s as Strategic Plans for various counties identified districts in which a piped
water supply was, as yet, unavailable. Group schemes facilitated the process of infilling these districts, aided in
some parts of the country by CLÁR top-up funding designed to ensure that isolated communities would not be
denied the benefits of a quality water supply.
Kilmaley Inagh GWS is Ireland’s largest group water scheme, with 1,903 domestic households, a total of 2,247 connections and a network extending over 250 km. It includs all or part of eight parishes in Mid and West Co. Clare.
Page
22
The Irish group water scheme sector
Once constructed, the ongoing
management of group water
schemes was left to the community. Most of the earlier schemes
were organised as trusteeships
(although the co-operative
model is now generally
favoured). The committees that
had been established to raise
funds for the construction of the
scheme now found that they had
assumed a long-term obligation
to manage it, including maintenance of pumps and network
A commemorative plaque to the founding members of Farmoyle Baraghy GWS on the boundary
repairs.
of Monaghan and Cavan. Similar plaques have been erected on schemes across the country.
This work was generally carried out on a purely voluntary basis and without appropriate training or adequate
resources. The objective of committees was to run their scheme as economically as possible, the annual contribution of members going towards the essential upkeep of pumps, electricity charges and fittings for the network. The
experience of local farmer members in working with mechanical apparatus and pipes in their everyday lives proved
invaluable to the survival of most schemes.
By and large, raw water was simply pumped directly to households or, where topography allowed it, to a reservoir
from which it was gravity-fed to local homes. The springs and boreholes from which most supplies were drawn had
good quality water and there appeared to be no need for treatment of any sort. Even as schemes moved increasingly
towards surface water supplies in the 1970s and as evidence emerged of quality issues affecting all raw water
sources, treatment facilities (where they existed at all) generally consisted of simple disinfection, possibly following slow sand filtration.
Having invested in the capital costs of constructing schemes, the State’s involvement in the sector was minimal.
Without State support and active supervision, the weaknesses inherent in the GWS model became manifest. These
might be summarised under three headings:
• Lack of effective co-ordination/management structures
• Lack of appropriate treatment
• Lack of money
By the early 1990s, these issues were leading to the effective collapse of schemes, as original trustees died and it
became increasingly difficult to recruit new members to committees of management in a climate of growing concern and anger about poor drinking water quality. From the late 1980s, many consumers began abandoning tap water
for bottled substitutes. This increased the difficulty facing schemes in collecting annual financial contributions from
their members.
Successive EPA reports on drinking water quality from the early 1990s merely reinforced the view that something
was seriously wrong in the GWS sector. Indeed, the issue of deficient water quality on Ballycroy GWS in West
Mayo became the focus of a Dáil adjournment debate in May 1995. In many ways Ballycroy came to exemplify the
unique challenges affecting the GWS sector. Constructed in the late 1970s, the scheme abstracted water from an
upland peaty lake which became subject to contamination. Apart from a screen mesh at the intake, there was no
a vital partner in the future delivery of rural water services
Page
23
Ballycroy GWS in West Mayo faced challenges that were common to many group water schemes in the 1990s: source contamination,
poor water quality, long distribution networks in peaty ground, low population density and lack of finance.
treatment, water being distributed to approximately 240 (eventually 300) households and farms along a network that
extended some 130 miles through difficult and boggy terrain.
Drinking water analysis in 1992 and 1993 had revealed serious faecal contamination of the supply and the Dáil heard
that independent testing conducted in 1994 had again detected serious deficiencies. In addition to bacteriological
contamination of the water supply, ‘samples also contained large amounts of turf humus and varied in turbidity from
light rust on good days to dark brown semi-translucency on bad days, after heavy rainfall’. The Dáil heard that water
supplied by the scheme ‘continues to have an odour and poor taste’.
Publicity surrounding these findings prompted Bord Fáilte to express concern, especially as two reputable international tour guide publications – Fodor’s of New York and Lonely Planet of London – had sought information on the
contamination incidents with a view to publishing a warning to tourists visiting West Mayo.
Speaking on behalf of the then Environment Minister, Brendan Howlin, Justice Minister Nora Owen implicitly
acknowledged that there was an onus on the State to provide financial support to a sector that had made a ‘huge contribution to the improvement of the lifestyles of rural communities and to the development of agriculture and offfarm economic activities’. Stating that ‘for over 30 years, successive Governments have supported this “bottom up”
approach to providing an essential rural piped water infrastructure’, Minister Owen addressed the problems affecting Ballycroy, but could have been referring to the problems facing most group water schemes and especially those
relying on surface water supplies or on groundwater sources (particularly springs) influenced by surface water flow:
‘The Ballycroy group scheme was completed some 15 years ago using an upland lake as the source of supply.
Unfortunately, in recent years, intensified agricultural activity within the lake catchment has given rise to increased
levels of suspended organic matter entering the lake. This has adversely affected the water quality of the scheme's
source.
‘For some time, the group organisers have been taking steps to protect the source against the threat of organic pollution. An access road to the abstraction site was provided to facilitate maintenance and the immediate area adjacent to the site was fenced off.
Page
24
The Irish group water scheme sector
‘In parallel with these developments, Mayo County Council formally notified the group of the non-compliance with
water quality standards and of the need for various remedial measures, including water treatment facilities. The
Department of the Environment invited the group to develop proposals for this purpose which would be financed
from the group scheme grants budget.’
In the course of her address, Minister Owen revealed that over 5,400 group schemes had been constructed, serving
in excess of 150,000 households. These figures were based on Department records of every scheme (from two houses upwards) for which application had been made, but the figures probably over-estimate the number of schemes
actually completed while possibly under-estimating the numbers of households supplied by the GWS sector. The
exact scale of the sector at its height is difficult to ascertain, but by the late 1990s, we know that privately sourced
group water schemes alone were providing potable water to between 80,000 and 90,000 rural households. This figure includes the 68,700 rural households currently on such schemes, in addition to the households on nearly 200
schemes that have been connected to public supplies or been taken-in-charge by a local authority in recent years.
The scale of the publicly sourced GWS sector is more difficult to determine with any degree of certainty, but based
on local authority returns to the EPA for 2010, just over 110,000 people were on publicly sourced supplies that come
under the Regulations. Allowing an average household occupancy of 2.82 (the National Average), this translates into
nearly 40,000 households. Given the active process of taking-in-charge by local authorities over the years, it is reasonable to estimate that this sector would have included a much greater population at its peak. These would have
ranged from schemes managed by active local committees to a significant proportion of publicly sourced schemes
that are group schemes in name only (orphan schemes) or were formed simply to allow an extension of a public
main.
In terms of size, of the 376 privately sourced schemes currently active, more than half have less than 100 houses,
while just over 100 serve more than 200 households. Only 50 schemes supply more than 400 households.
With 120 domestic connections, Lettergesh/Mullaghgloss GWS is on the coastal fringe of north Connemara. More than half of
schemes have less than 100 households. Only 100 schemes exceed 200 households, while 50 supply more than 400 homes.
a vital partner in the future delivery of rural water services
Page
25
Towards 2020
The importance of the GWS sector in developing and sustaining agriculture in Ireland
By far the most common type of non-domestic connections
on group water schemes are agriculturally based, reflecting
the fragmented nature of Irish land holding and the need to
provide individal connections at fields dispersed over a
wide distance.
Most GWS were established in the mid to late 1970s and
the majority of their founding members were farmers
requiring piped water to supply their enterprises. Indeed,
farmers were to the forefront in organising group water
schemes in this period and the committees of most schemes
were composed largely or entirely of farmer members.
They brought their expertise (and sometimes their
machinery) to help physically install the schemes, each
local farmer contributing to the voluntary effort. Indeed,
once the schemes were constructed, the farming community were (and continue to be) largely responsible for
operating and maintaining them. In return they received a
constant supply of drinking water for their homes and
enterprises.
Recognition
The particular need of the farming community for a mains
water supply was recognised by government back in the
1970s, when most group water schemes were constructed.
Additional capital grant aid was payable where the GWS
was supplying a farm as well as a domestic dwelling. The
grant regime operated and paid by the Dept. of
Environment & Local Government at that time provided
£600 towards each house that connected and £400 extra for
the farm. This was a clear recognition by the State of the
potential benefit to the economy where farm enterprises
could be connected to a mains water supply.
There was a huge take-up of these new grants, funded
under a special measure known then as “The Western
Package”. As a result, rural Ireland witnessed the greatest
installation of infrastructure since rural electrification in
the mid 1950s.
There is little doubt that without that specially targeted
grant aid package, the farming success story as we know it
today might never have happened.
Due to increases in production over the years, water
demand for stock has increased. Teagasc produced figures
in 2011 for agricultural water demand suggesting that dairy
cows require up to 100 litres of water per head per day,
with dairy parlour and bulk tank washings accounting for
up to 110 litres per wash.
In the United States it is estimated that to produce 1 litre
of milk 1,000 litres of water is required. It is also estimated that it takes 14,000 litres of water to produce 1kg of beef
and 5,000 litres of water to produce 1kg lamb (National
Footprint Network).
Page
26
Quality Standards
With the introduction of the ‘Code of Good Farming
Practice’, ‘REPS’ and changes to Food Legislation in the
1990s, farmers are required to meet ever higher standards.
For example, dairy producers are required to have a treated
water supply located in their dairies that is compliant with
the Drinking Water Regulations so as not to contaminate
any milk produced. Similar standards are demanded of
poultry and other livestock producers.
The rising standards demanded, have made farmers
increasingly conscious of the need for a quality water supply as opposed to simply having a water supply.
The Irish food industry operates in a highly regulated and
tightly controlled environment. The safety of food produced in Ireland is now among the highest in the world
(Safety of Potable Water in Ireland, FSAI 2006) and to
maintain this high standard, food business operators
(FBOs) need to be aware of the nature of the supply of
drinking water they receive and use. Where an FBO
receives its drinking water supply from a private GWS, the
safety of the water is of paramount importance.
Alternative Agri-related Enterprises
The expansion in agricultural production since EEC entry
could not have happened without the mains water supply
provided by group water schemes. Today GWS supplies are
enabling farmers to diversify into other agri-related enterprises including food processing and tourism, both of which
require a reliable supply of affordable top quality water supplied by their local GWS. As this diversified sector expands,
the potential to sustain existing jobs and to create rural
employment will depend on the continued success of group
schemes in delivering a quality and professional service.
The future
The agrictural sector is now set to further expand with the
restriction on production under the CAP being removed over
the coming years. In its Food Harvest, A Vision for Irish
Agri-Food and Fisheries 2020 document, the Department of
Agriculture sees the need to focus particular resources on the
opportunity presented by marketing to consumers who
demand the highest quality in production and environmental
standards, expect clear visibility on sustainability issues and,
crucially, are willing to pay a premium for this.
Potable water (as provided by Ireland’s GWS sector, in
which farmers are important stakeholders) is the vital
ingredient required for the production of all agricultural
produce. Through applying Quality Assurance standards,
group schemes have the capacity to deliver a consistent
supply of water that is wholesome and clean. Such a service is essential for the survival and development of a sustainable agricultural sector in Ireland.
The Irish group water scheme sector
Transformation of the sector
By the mid 1990s, the GWS sector was in crisis. Schemes lacked several essential criteria for sustaining a successful water supply: appropriate treatment, relevant and consistent training/mentoring of operatives, effective business
organisation and forward planning. Above all they lacked the capacity to meet the financial burden of delivering a
consistent quality water supply, much less the capital demands of upgrade works. Notwithstanding all of this, the
case taken by a resident of Ballycroy GWS to the European Commission would confirm that group water schemes
must comply with the same onerous quality standards demanded of a municipal water supply and, furthermore, that
the State has a responsibility to ensure that this standard is achieved by all water providers who come under the
Drinking Water Regulations (i.e. those supplying more than 50 people or smaller supplies with a social/commercial
connection).
As Minister Owen pointed out in 1995, the State was willing and ready to grant aid capital works in the GWS sector, recognising that group schemes were playing a unique role in the social and economic life of rural communities, a role that the State would otherwise have had to assume (at far greater cost to the Exchequer). As for the possibility of the State simply taking over all schemes, this was not a viable option given the legal, financial and logistical ramifications of taking-in-charge or replacing hundreds of sources, pump houses and reservoirs as well as thousands of miles of pipework (much of it running through private lands). Indeed, the public water sector had serious
challenges of its own to resolve. Thus, any solution to the problems afflicting the GWS sector would have to be
found through a new framework that would equip the GWS sector to deliver on its statutory responsibilities.
The Rural Water Programme
This framework evolved in the late 1990s. Until then there was no coherent organisation through which group water
schemes could be mobilised on a sectoral (as opposed to individual) basis. With the formation in 1997 of the
National Federation of Group Water Schemes (NFGWS), however, a vehicle now existed through which a process
of co-ordinated transformation could be achieved. In tandem with this development, the devolution of responsibility for the GWS sector from the Department to the local authorities meant that a statutory platform was in place
through which National policy could be implemented at a local level. Building on these developments, the Rural
Water Programme agreed in 1998 would provide the engine of rural water reform, forging a structured partnership
between the Minister, his Department, the local authorities and the NFGWS. The stated objectives of the RWP were
as follows:
• To protect public health by ensuring compliance with the Drinking Water Directive.
• To pursue a planned approach to investment and ensure best practice in all aspects of the management and
operation of rural water schemes.
• To give practical effect to the principal of partnership with the voluntary group scheme sector in the determination and implementation of policy on rural water supply through the local monitoring committees.
• To assist in the effective administration of the devolved rural water programme.
• To sustain the rural environment and promote economic development.
The above stated objectives have informed all aspects of the transformation of the rural water sector in recent years.
Below we outline the practical outworking of these same objectives to date, bearing in mind that the RWP is an
ongoing process, vital to the future sustainability of group water schemes.
Delivery of the programme
Besides reaffirming (and expanding) the availability of capital funding towards the cost of GWS infrastructural
upgrades, the RWP put in place financial supports in the form of an annual subsidy to be paid by the State towards
the operation of group schemes. While this subsidy was introduced ostensibly to provide parity for GWS commu-
a vital partner in the future delivery of rural water services
Page
27
nities – given that domestic
water charges had been
removed on public supplies
– the reality was that there
was no automatic entitlement to subsidy. Instead,
conditions were imposed
with a view to encouraging
schemes to adopt best management practice, especially
in terms of delivering a quality
water
supply.
Furthermore, there was
always an upper limit (maxMembers of the National Rural Water Monitoring Committee (NRWMC) picturd in 2004. The imum per household) in
NRWMC was established as the advisory body to the Minister under the Rural Water Programme terms of recoupable costs, as
and was tasked with co-ordinating a range of activities including devising and implementing a strategy to resolve the issue of deficient drinking water quality on hundreds of group water schemes. well as a maximum ‘free’
domestic water allowance.
Under the Water Services Act (2007) the committee has been given Statutory recognition.
In the early years of the RWP, partnership structures were established at national and at local level (e.g. the NRWMC
and WSNTG), rural water strategic plans were developed, pilot studies were conducted on treatment processes,
intensive monitoring programmes were initiated both for raw water sources and treated water supplies and a
National Strategy was developed to resolve unacceptable quality deficiency on group schemes. Added impetus was
given to the search for viable solutions to this problem in November 2002, when the European Court of Justice
issued its ruling in the case taken by a resident of Ballycroy GWS. Ireland was adjudged to be in breach of the water
quality standards in respect of group water schemes and with failing to adequately reflect in Irish law the binding
nature of the EU water quality Directive 80/778. The Court threatened to impose substantial fines on the Irish State
if this situation was not resolved without delay.
No fewer than 453 schemes were listed in the ECJ judgement, while a further 276 schemes were subsequently identified as being out of compliance. As if to drive home the message that urgent action was needed, the EPA’s drinking water quality report released in January 2003 showed a deteriorating situation in respect to microbiological quality on Irish group water schemes, no fewer than 485 group schemes having testing positive for faecal coliforms during the reporting period. Meanwhile, the results of an intensive raw water monitoring study commissioned by the
NRWMC on 723 sources supplying 664 group schemes provided stark evidence that no scheme could rely on
untreated water: It stated:
‘The introduction of treatment processes to eliminate bacteriological problems is needed immediately, as the data
generated in this study indicate that no source is consistently of sufficient quality that it may be used as drinking
water without treatment.’
Clearly, the long-standing strategy of addressing the issue of GWS upgrades on an individual basis could no longer
be sustained. Whereas group schemes had previously been urged to come forward with their own upgrade proposals,
the new strategy agreed by the National Rural Water Monitoring Committee (advisory body to the Minister under
the RWP) insisted that schemes set aside their own plans so that the most economically advantageous upgrade solution would be pursued. For most schemes, and in particular those relying on surface waters or groundwaters influenced by surface flow, this meant agreeing to become part of a ‘bundle’ in one of several Design Build Operate
(DBO) projects.
Page
28
The Irish group water scheme sector
A substantial number of privately sourced schemes were designated for connection to a public main, with others
to be taken in charge. Only schemes that already had treatment in place or that had exceptional groundwater quality could pursue a stand-alone upgrade solution, usually involving the installation of simple disinfection. Apart
from 145 (20.4%) non-compliant schemes that were already connected to public supplies, the upgrade breakdown
was as follows:
Upgrade option
Connection to public mains
Taking-in-charge
DBO treatment
Stand-alone
No. of schemes
118
65
258
122
Connection to public mains/taking in charge
This was the preferred option in the agreed NRWMC
National strategy, given that water quality on public
schemes was identified as being relatively high in comparison to the GWS sector. This strategy involved the
loss of identity/sovereignty for the schemes who came
into this category. There was considerable resentment
and opposition to surrendering schemes that were longestablished, low-cost and community-run enterprises,
regardless of the fact that the taking-in-charge option
attracted 100% funding for all associated upgrade
works, while 85% was available towards the connection
solution.
% of schemes
16.7%
9.2%
36.5%
17.2%
Here, the NFGWS used its good offices to act as a persuader for what was a difficult pill to swallow, not least
for the Federation itself given its representative role and
its stated objective of standing by the right of communities to retain and operate their own water services.
However, in the spirit of partnership both the NFGWS
and the individual schemes sacrificed their independence for the common good and set aside their genuine
concerns in relation to accepting ‘chemically-treated’
A sign in the the Gaeltacht of north Connemara, where two privately
water.
sourced group water schemes were connected to the Cor na Móna
PWS as part of the National upgrade strategy agreed by the
NRWMC under the Rural Water Programme.
Stand-alone
This represents a large proportion of the GWS sector in terms of numbers of schemes, but is relatively small (as compared to schemes in DBO projects) when considering numbers of households. However, as Appendix 2 of Section III
shows, the stand-alone sector is regionally strong in parts of Leinster, and Munster, as well as in Galway and Mayo.
This category includes schemes that were to pursue one of the other upgrade strategies, where these are ongoing or
did not proceed as anticipated for a variety of reasons (e.g. several schemes in Mayo that were to connect to the Lough
Mask Regional Supply could not do so, due to supply issues). In these cases interim disinfection solutions were provided. Improved disinfection systems (and occasionally filtration processes) have been installed on those schemes
that were included under the Stand-alone upgrade option. Given the focus on resolving quality issues, many of these
schemes are still awaiting wider network upgrades, including the installation of universal metering.
a vital partner in the future delivery of rural water services
Page
29
Walterstown GWS in Great Island, Cork, is one of hundreds of stand-alone group water schemes to have benefitted from investment
under the upgrade strategy and is now implementing quality assurance procedures in the delivery of its water service.
DBO bundle strategy
The DBO bundle concept was first piloted
by the NRWMC in County Monaghan. This
project was tendered in 2001 and the first
treatment plant became operational in June
2003. Following the success of the
Monaghan pilot, DBO bundle projects began
to roll-out across the country. With the assistance of the Water Services Training Group
(WSTG) comprehensive procurement guidelines for DBO projects were formulated.
From the 258 schemes originally proposed
for the DBO option this reduced to 219
schemes (because of other options being pursued in relation to the remaining schemes).
DBO Bundles:
East Cavan
West Cavan
SW Cavan
Monaghan
South Leinster
Limerick
Clare
Roscommon/Leitrim
Page
30
3
1
9
1
1
2
13
Amalgamated
schemes
Total no.
of houses
7
1,573
10
9
5
4
9
9
22
4
3,149
18
23
4
1,629
15
5,024
10
3,625
4
20
13
6
6
Sligo NW
5,936
19
Mayo 1
Mayo 2
2,055
3,083
16
Galway 2
4,306
18
Galway 1
A number of Local Authority schemes form Sligo SE
part of DBO bundles as follows:
Stand-alone
Monaghan
West Cavan
South Leinster
Galway No. 1
Galway No.2
Roscommon/Leitrim
Number of
original schemes
15
37
22
6
5
3,028
3,432
4,352
748
1,364
DBO schemes:
Number of
original schemes
Amalgamated
schemes
Total no.
of houses
Glinsk Creggs
3
1
391
Annagh
Pollacat Springs
Total:
2
3
219
The Irish group water scheme sector
1
1
141
751
395
44,841
There are three distinct phases in the financing of such projects, as follows:
DBO advance works
These included a range of activities from the provision of interconnecting pipes between amalgamating schemes,
the investigation and development of new or supplementary sources, the procurement of suitable sites and storage
capacity, the replacement of critical mains and, perhaps most importantly, the installation of bulk and universal
metering. The demand for metering came about in response to the Department’s limiting of treatment plant capacity
to cater for up to 25% unaccounted for water (UFW) and projected demand 25 years hence. These metering tools
have proved essential to effective water demand management on these schemes.
Design Build phase
These costs are those associated with the designing and putting in place of the treatment plant solution. Under the
RWP, these are subject to a maximum of €6,475.00 per household, recoupable as follows;
• 100% for the mechanical and electrical elements of the treatment plant
• 85% of the civil works costs
• As outlined above, additional funding (85%) was provided for works identified as being necessary to ensure the
scheme would be in a position to satisfactorily manage its treated water supply on completion of the DB phase.
Work such as critical mains replacement, metering and storage facilities were funded under this heading.
• As an added incentive – and in recognitions of the
savings achievable through the amalgamation of
GWSs – 100% funding was negotiated for the interconnecting mains needed to physically amalgamate
schemes that had agreed to this measure.
O&M phase
The costs of the O&M phase consist largely of payment
to the DBO contractor in respect of the operation and
maintenance of the treatment plant over the 20-year
contract period. These costs are established at tender
stage and only increase or decrease in accordance with
the inflationary indexation agreed in the contract.
The O&M charges are split into two elements, a fixed
cost & a volumetric cost.
1. Fixed Costs relate to the contractor’s fixed overhead
outlay such as wages. The fixed costs are spread
across the bundle on a per house basis ensuring that
the fixed costs are carried by the schemes in
proportion to their size. Fixed costs are not directly
related to the volume of water treated.
2. Volumetric costs consist of an amount per cubic metre
treated. Charges are scheme specific and generally
reflect the quality of raw water, pumping distances etc.
There is also the additional cost of replacement of treatAdvance works on Kilcoona Caherlistrane GWS in County Galway, ment plant components with a life expectancy of >5
part of the first Galway DBO bundle project.
years during the term of the O&M contract.
a vital partner in the future delivery of rural water services
Page
31
These components and their
associated costs and replacement schedules were included in the accepted tender.
The replacement schedule is
organised so as to ensure that
the plant is “fit for purpose”
at the end of the 20 years.
The additional annual costs
associated with O&M treatment contracts were taken
into account in the most
recent review of the
Operational Costs Subsidy
Scheme for group water
schemes. Under the revision
an additional strand of subsidy is in place to assist
GWSs with their O&M costs.
A system of capital funding
for the costs of replacement
of treatment plant components is now also agreed.
DBO experience
In general the DBO concept
has been very successful,
dealing with quality deficient supplies on 219
schemes in total. Indeed, a
number of these DBO
schemes are now supplying
quality treated water to local
authorities.
The effectiveness of the DBO bundling approach has been acknowledged in various reports, including the DEHLG’s
Value for Money and Policy Review Initiative (2007) [F. Gallagher etc.]. This recognises the complexity and relative high cost of the strategy:
‘The DBO treatment plant solution was found to be the most expensive treatment solution but was the only viable
technical option in cases, where the raw water chemistry was not appropriate for disinfection/sterilisation or connection to the public mains was not possible. The practice of procuring several DBO treatment plants together in
bundles appears to have been successful in attracting more competitively priced bids for these bigger contracts.’
Beyond the implications for the Exchequer, the DBO bundling approach provided huge challenges for individual
schemes and for the NFGWS. Selling the concept of DBO to schemes that already had their own upgrades plans in
Page
32
The Irish group water scheme sector
place was regarded by many schemes as coercion. Besides persuading them along this route, the Federation had the
added challenge of convincing neighbouring schemes to rationalise and amalgamate as part of the DBO bundling
upgrade strategy. This took months of protracted and painstaking negotiations that were underpinned by the assurances from the Department that funding would be available for the full duration of these contracts and beyond, in
recognition of the substantial long-term liabilities being entered into by the schemes that had no other option available to them.
As with any project of such a scale, challenges have arisen during both the Design Build and the Operation and
Maintenance phases of the contracts. Many of these can be, and have been, addressed through agreement and goodwill via the project DB steering committees and liaison monitoring committees. Others are addressed in accordance
with the provisions of the contract and with the assistance of the NFGWS, the Local Authorities and the DECLG.
Some examples of typical issues are outlined below:
1. Site Access
2. Source Access
3. ESB connections
4. Planning issues
5. National Parks and Wildlife concerns
6. Delays in commissioning and take-over certificates
7. Inadequate raw water data analysis included in the DBO tender/contract documents
8. Deterioration of raw water source quality
9. Insufficient maintenance of plants
10. Insufficient maintenance of distribution network
11. Landscaping and site maintenance
12. Problems with quality of chemicals used
13. No requirement for raw water analysis as part of the O&M contract
14. Indexation survey data – Central Statistic Office survey methodology changes resulting in discontinuance of indices specified in contract documents
The completion of construction in DBO bundle projects
and the commencement of
the 20-year O&M phase of
the contracts has provided a
justifiable cause for celebration. Environment Minister,
Phil Hogan, TD, is pictured
at the recent official opening
of the South Leinster DBO
bundle project, incorporating 22 formerly non-compliant group schemes (18 following amalgamations), as
well as 9 public supplies.
a vital partner in the future delivery of rural water services
Page
33
Rationalisation
From the early days of the NFGWS, there was
recognition that group schemes would have to
consider rationalisation and mergers in the
context of improved water quality, economic
efficiencies and professional management.
Rationalisation was embodied in Federation
policy and strategy from 2000, when a series of
mergers were driven by the Federation in the
context of the development of county rural
water strategic plans.
For many schemes the provision of a water
treatment facility was deemed not to be feasible either because of the inadequacy of their
source or because the provision of such was
unaffordable due to the small size of the GWS
and the limitations of the maximum capital
grant available per house. In such cases the
only viable way forward was to join with
neighbouring schemes to share one treatment
plant. As part of its development programme
and in recognition of the benefits of strategic
rationalisation, the NFGWS worked with the
relevant schemes to facilitate discussion and
agreement on proposed amalgamations.
Rationalisation templates and formal agreements and resolutions were developed by the
NFGWS in consultation with ICOS to ensure
the amalgamation of registered co-operative
societies was carried out fairly and in accordance with relevant legislation. The co-operative structure is the NFGWSs recommended
corporate structure for Group Water Schemes.
During the planning stages of the DBO roll-out The Mid Roscommon DBO bundle project advance works included the laying of
interconnecting pipework between 10 schemes that amalgamated as part of the
many GWSs, with the assistance and support upgrade. However, the single largest rationalisation took place in East Galway
of the NFGWS, agreed to amalgamate into where 11 schemes merged as Cappataggle District GWS, part of the second
Galway DBO bundle.
larger GWS entities.
A total of 105 group water schemes amalgamated into just 34 new group water schemes as part of this ambitious
and very successful rationalisation programme (as per Table on page 30). In one of these amalgamations a total of
11 group water schemes in the Cappataggle area of Co. Galway amalgamated into one larger scheme serving a total
of 575 households, while 10 schemes in Mid Roscommon also merged (640 households).
The spreading of costs and sharing of resources through amalgamation has the added benefit of ensuring sustainability for the future, particularly for smaller schemes.
Page
34
The Irish group water scheme sector
Capacity building in the sector
From the outset, the Rural Water Programme accepted that addressing immediate public heath concerns through the
provision of essential treatment and other infrastructure was only one element of the challenge facing the sector,
albeit the most critical in the immediate term.
Beyond the provision of infrastructure, the RWP clearly saw the need for capacity building in the management and
operation of group water schemes from source to tap. By definition, this included a commitment to a range of issues
from source protection through the oversight of treatment systems to the effective management of distribution networks, as well as the general management issues involved in running an open and accountable water services business. This model is now a requirement under the Water Services Act (2007).
The first task in realising these objectives was a root and branch restructuring of the GWS sector to promote open
and democratic member-participation leading to accountable management, grounded in a rights-based approach.
The Charter of Rights and Responsibilities developed by the NFGWS was key to delivering this objective, as was
the adoption of the GWS Co-operative Model Rules by individual schemes.
Once democratic structures were in place, the strategy involved the design and delivery of relevant and tailored
training programmes aimed in the first instance at improving the management skills of GWS committees/managers
and secondly the practical skills of operatives on group water schemes.
Finally, the process of meeting the vision set down in the RWP is part of an ongoing process that includes mentoring of schemes, provision of systems within which they can function professionally and support in such key areas
as the validation of service contract payments, Performance Management System implementation and day-to-day
governance issues.
All of the above are key and ongoing functions of the NFGWS, as the co-ordinating body of the GWS sector. The
vital role of the Federation in the sector is outlined in more detail in Section III of this submission.
Getting to grips with high UFW
Group schemes benefit from policies introduced as part of the RWP
Strategy
Thanks to a water conservation strategy which makes full
use of universal meters as well as bulk meters to identify
water loss either on the mains or on the consumer side of
the connection, current water demand in Clew Bay GWS
is in the range of 330m3/day to 370m3/day. This is between
60m3/day to 100m3/day less than was formerly being
abstracted by Cuilmore GWS alone!
This example clearly demonstrates the positive benefits
for the reduction in water abstraction when there is investment in network infrastructure and universal metering.
Environmental benefit
The Skirdagh River is located in a Special Area of
Conservation (SAC) and is an important habitat for the
Fresh Water Pearl Mussel, a protected species. Reduced
Connections Pre amalgamation (m3/day) Post amalgamation (m3/day) Net Savings (m3/day) water abstraction
can only help pro180
450
160
290
tect the future of
190
600
170
430
370
1,050
330
720
this species.
As part of the implementation of the RWP, there have been
numerous examples of the benefits derived from the rationalisation in the GWS sector as well as from the introduction of universal metering as part of a strategy to conserve
water and eliminate wastage. An excellent example of those
benefits became clear following the amalgamation of two
group water schemes near Newport in County Mayo.
Prior to amalgamation, Burrishoole GWS and Cuilmore
GWS each had their own water source and both had very
high levels of unaccounted for water (UFW).
They amalgamated to form Clew Bay GWS which uses
the Skirdagh River as its source. The capacity of the new
DBO water treatment plant is 560m3/day which is considerably less than the actual combined water demand of the
two schemes prior to amalgamation.
Scheme
Burrishoole
Cuilmore
Totals
a vital partner in the future delivery of rural water services
Page
35
Page
36
The National Federation of Group Water Schemes
Section III
The National Federation of Group Water Schemes
its role in the water services sector
its role in the water services sector
Page
37
Contents:
Page 39 NFGWS mission statement
Page 39 Formative years of the Federation
Page 42 NFGWS structures
Page 43 General functions of the Federation
Page 47 Current and future priorities
Page 49 NFGWS staff
Page 51 Future funding of the NFGWS
Page 52 Appendix 1 - NFGWS expenditure and costs
Page 53 Appendix 2 - Privately-sourced group water schemes
Page 61 Appendix 3 - Publicly-sourced group water schemes
Page
38
The National Federation of Group Water Schemes
NFGWS mission statement
“To service, protect, revitalise and advance the rural group water scheme movement in all relevant EU, national and
local forums through the provision of representational, advisory, training, developmental and other services that will
facilitate the sourcing, management and delivery of environmentally-sustainable water supplies of the highest quality at the lowest cost, to the members of group water schemes, while also ensuring the equitable treatment of rural
group water schemes by government and the EU.”
Formative years of the Federation
The National Federation of Group Water Schemes (NFGWS) is the representative organisation for privately-sourced
and publicly-sourced group water schemes in Ireland. Founded in 1997, in response to the ending of water charges
on public water schemes, the Federation was incorporated as a co-operative society in 1998.
The primary objective of the NFGWS, at its inception, was to secure equality of treatment, ensuring that those it
represented received their full entitlement with regard to the financial supports already conceded to their fellow citizens in urban areas.
The aims of the organisation broadened in light of mounting evidence of poor drinking water quality within the
group scheme sector. The extent of this problem was highlighted by successive EPA Drinking Water Quality Reports
and by a case brought against Ireland in the European Court of Justice and adjudicated on in November 2002.
However, the full scale of GWS non-compliance was revealed in an unprecedented monitoring programme conducted between November 2002 and April 2004 under the auspices of the National Rural Water Monitoring Committee.
This found that as many as 62% of privately-sourced schemes were failing to comply with the crucial microbiological
parameters, while less than 20% complied with all of the parameters.
In light of such findings, it was clear that historic under-investment in GWS treatment facilities needed to be
addressed as a priority, as did the capacity of GWS personnel to effectively manage the sourcing, treatment and distribution of their water supplies.
Given the emerging evidence of significant challenges facing the sector, the Federation had already forged a new
partnership arrangement with government, through the Department of the Environment, and with the local authorities and other rural organisations. The Rural Water Programme (RWP), formulated in discussions between these
partners and launched in 1998, laid out the common objectives to be pursued and the particular roles of each of the
partners, including the NFGWS. In terms of its strategic objectives, the RWP aimed to:
• protect public health by ensuring compliance with the Drinking Water Directive.
• pursue a planned approach to investment and ensure best practice in all aspects of the management
and operation of rural water schemes.
• give practical effect to the principle of partnership with the voluntary group water sector – through
local monitoring committees – in agreeing and implementing policy on rural water supply.
• assist in the effective administration of the devolved rural water programme.
• sustain the rural environment and promote economic development.
Internally, the Federation set about putting in place the structures required to effectively carry out its remit. 2001 and
2002 saw the implementation by the NFGWS of 35 organisational recommendations contained in a consultantancy
report drawn up by the Irish Co-operative Organisation Society (ICOS). Their implementation heralded an increasingly professional approach in terms of the internal working of the Federation and in terms of its working relationship with external organisations such as the EPA.
its role in the water services sector
Page
39
While representing the particular interests of group water schemes, individually and collectively, and while insisting
on local discussion and agreement as core requirements throughout the process of transformation that has been (and
is) required, the NFGWS quickly acknowledged the need for a strategic approach to development and has actively
sought to encourage schemes to re-evaluate and, where necessary, set aside their own plans where these were at odds
with agreed national strategies.
Under the Rural Water Programme, the achievement of full compliance with water quality standards by all group
water schemes has been the paramount objective of the NFGWS. Furthermore, the most efficient and cost-effective
solutions in addressing deficient water quality have been canvassed with individual schemes. The NFGWS has,
therefore, played a central role in the progress and success of the National Action Plan for Rural Water agreed by
the National Rural Water Monitoring Committee (NRWMC) in 2003.
This plan set out the framework for upgrading infrastructure on quality-deficient group water schemes, while also
addressing the issues of capacity building, source protection and water conservation. In terms of the capital
investment programme it set down four options:
• construction of new disinfection-treatment
works using Design, Build and Operate procurement, coupled with the bundling of numbers of schemes under a single contract.
• decommissioning quality-deficient private
sources and connecting them to public supplies.
• taking-in-charge by county councils of group
schemes
• minor works (chlorination and UV treatment)
for schemes with good quality raw water.
The plan assumed that some 50,000 households
were served by privately-sourced group water
schemes. In reality, well over 80,000 rural households were supplied by almost 700 schemes. The
outworking of the upgrade strategy has meant that
today 70,000 households are supplied by 376 privately-sourced group water schemes, virtually all
of which have upgraded infrastructure.
In tandem with this infrastructural drive, the
Federation has demonstrated a strong commitment
to capacity building through training, mentoring
and dissemination of educational/information materials. These remain core aspects of the work of
Federation staff and will do so into the future.
The Federation has also played an important role in addressing specific issues, including, for example, making
group water schemes aware of their statutory obligations under the Water Services Act (2007) and under the
Drinking Water Regulations and in encouraging and assisting them to prepare for licensing.
Page
40
The National Federation of Group Water Schemes
To meet its various objectives, the structures and staff of
the Federation have had to be adaptable and capable of
responding at relatively short notice to the rapidly developing legislative and regulatory framework within which
water services now operate. Below is a brief outline of
the Federation’s structure, functions and focuses, with a
brief account of the roles of its staff members.
The DBO treatment plant at Truagh GWS in County Monaghan (pictured
above) opened in July 2003, the first of 141 DBO treatment plants constructed as part of the national upgrade strategy for rural water. The
NFGWS played a key role in persuading 219 individual group water
schemes to become part of one of 17 DBO ‘bundles’ formed as part of this
strategy and in securing significant amalgamations of smaller schemes,
including the amalgamation of Bruskey-Killadoon GWS and Gartylough
GWS in County Cavan to form Erne Valley GWS (pictured on right).
its role in the water services sector
Page
41
NFGWS structures
The NFGWS is a representative co-operative, with strategic management vested in an elected and voluntary Board
of Management drawn from the GWS sector. This Board of Management agrees strategic objectives and oversees
the work of staff, retaining close scrutiny of such key matters as finance. Cheques are signed by the Board’s joint
treasurers, while the Chairperson and Secretary sign off on annual audited accounts as approved by the full Board.
In accordance with the rules of the NFGWS, individual Board members retire or offer themselves for re-election on
a triennial basis at the Annual Delegate Conference of the organisation. In addition to the elected members, the
Board includes an external special advisor, whose principal role is to advise on co-operative structure and governance.
Federation policies are informed and approved democratically by delegates from county or regional federations at
the Annual Delegate Conference held each year in March. These local federations also meet periodically to discuss
particular issues and to nominate representatives to county Rural Water Services Committees.
Other structures in which GWS representatives participate include the National Rural Water Services Committee
(NRWSC), the Water Services Training Group (WSTG), County Strategic Policy Committees, DBO project Steering
Committees and Liaison Monitoring Committees (for group schemes in DBO projects).
The Annual Delegate Conference is the democratic forum in which Federation policies are decided and individual Board members are elected. A published annual report for the previous year as well as fully audited accounts are provided to conference delegates. The number of delegates from each
county Federation is determined by the extent of the GWS sector locally. Thus, a county such as Galway (where there is a very large group water sector) will have proportionally more delegates than parts of the country where the sector is relatively small.
Page
42
The National Federation of Group Water Schemes
Daily contact is maintained between Federation staff and GWS management on a wide range of issues. Pictured above, NFGWS development officer,
Joe Gallagher, meets Bulgaden GWS secretary, Mary English, to assist with the preparation of accounts for the annual audit.
General functions of the Federation
1. Provision of a development, support and representative service to group water schemes nationally.
2. Development and delivery of training programmes:
• Quality Assurance System
• Demand Management and Leakage Control
• GWS Management
• Co-operative management
• Performance Management System (DBO)
• Financial Planning
3. Mentoring of GWS organisers and operatives following formal delivery of training programmes and assisting in
the development of strategic plans.
4. Attendance at GWS Board and General Meetings and advising on:
• Governance
• Best Practice
• Member/Customer Relations
• Organisation of meetings (such as AGMs)
• Statutory and Regulatory obligations with emphasis on the importance of Public Health considerations in
delivering a water supply service
• Subsidy and Capital Grant Aid conditions
• Action Plan compilation and delivery
5. DBO Validation Service
• Evaluation of contractor invoices against Monthly Status Reports and contractual performance standards
• Liaison with DBO contractors on behalf of the GWS
• Liaison with GWS on DBO contractor issues
its role in the water services sector
Page
43
6. Facilitation of Liaison Monitoring Committee Meetings (DBO Performance Management System)
7. Assistance to LA rural water staff in relation to:
• Subsidy claims
• Communicating LA policy to GWSs
• Facilitating meetings with GWS personnel
• Assisting with problems in relation to schemes
• County Rural Water Monitoring Committee meetings
8. Working with the Water Services Training Group (WSTG) to:
• Develop and deliver training relevant to the GWS sector
• Organise and present the Annual Rural Water Conference (300 delegates)
9. Interaction with DECLG re:
• Meetings
• Submissions and Reports
• National Rural Water Services Committee
• Disseminating DECLG information and guidance to GWSs
10. Encouraging community engagement, through awareness/education initiatives;
• Much work done as part of the National Source Protection Pilot Project including the development of
National and Secondary School educational material
• Assisting GWSs with the compilation and printing of member newsletters and information communications.
11. Advancing source protection strategies and conservation measures aimed at securing the long-term viability of
water supply services provision.
12. In-house compilation, design and preparation to print readiness of publications including;
Meetings are held several times annually with senior officials at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, while
the Federation also values face-to-face meetings with the Minister of the day. NFGWS Chairperson, Brendan O’Mahony (centre) and senior staff,
Colm Brady and Seán Clerkin, are pictured above with Minister Phil Hogan, TD and Maria Graham of the DECLG.
Page
44
The National Federation of Group Water Schemes
The annual Rural Water Conference, organised jointly by the NFGWS in assocation with the Water Services Training Group brings together GWS
activists, Water Services Authority staff, representatives of the DECLG and other organisations involved in water delivery.
• Rural Water News – first produced in 1999 as GWS News, this magazine has been published on a quarterly basis since 2003. It is circulated (free-of-charge) to all group water schemes and more widely in
the rural water sector.
• Charter of Rights & Responsibilities – prepared by the Federation under the auspices of the NRWMC
in 2002, this document was revised and updated in 2009. Its adoption and implementation is a condition of funding.
• Information Booklet Series – the development of the NFGWS Quality Assurance System in 2001-2002
was followed by publication of a booklet explaining the requirements of a HACCP approach to drinking water delivery. Further booklets were prepared, explaining the benefits of affiliating to the NFGWS
and providing an outline of the training course for directors of group water schemes.
• What’s in your water? – a GWS guide to the drinking water parameters – this booklet explains what
parametric exceedances may be saying about a drinking water supply.
• Annual Reports – these include a detailed review of activities in the rural water sector and are published
in advance of the Federation’s Annual Delegate Conference held each March.
• Advisory information leaflets – these include:
• Planning the Group Water Scheme Annual General Meeting
• GWS and the annual subsidy claim
• Sample Notices (e.g. boil water notice)
• All About Water: water education for primary schools and Our water, our resource, our responsibility: water management for the 21st century – these books (as well as other educational resources) were
developed by the NFGWS in conjunction with the Centre for Freshwater Studies at Dundalk Institute
of Technology and Monaghan County Council as part of the National Source Protection Pilot Project.
• Model Rules for GWS Co-operatives – revised by the Federation and ICOS in recent years.
Professionally printed and scheme-specific copies of the model rules are available.
its role in the water services sector
Page
45
Primary school children in a County Clare National School, enjoying the All About Water book provided to the school by the local Kilmaley-Inagh
Group Water Scheme as part of an awareness raising programme that often includes a visit to the local water treatment plant. The Federation supplies copies of the book to schemes on request.
Much has been accomplished in the 15 years since the Federation’s formation, including:
• Promoting a more professional approach to the delivery of rural drinking water services by
• adoption of the co-operative structure developed for the sector by the NFGWS and ICOS and convincing schemes to move from trusteeships to this model.
• assisting in organising the Special General Meeting needed to approve an alteration in corporate
structure and addressing GWS members at this meeting.
• encouraging good governance practices.
• actively promoting the employment of managers/maintenance staff and urging small schemes to
employ such staff on a shared basis.
• Driving a major rationalisation programme by
• bringing neighbouring schemes together and convincing them of need for and benefits of amalgamation.
• preparing the technical/legal resolutions required to effect an amagamation.
• organising the Special General Meeting and helping persuade members to support the resolutions as
presented by their Board of Management.
• registering the new entity and facilitating related issues, such as transfer of assets.
• Focusing on the entitlements of consumers/members of group water schemes by
• producing a Charter of Rights and Responsibilities in 2002, which was updated in light of the legislative and regulatory changes introduced in 2007.
• encouraging the adoption of the Charter by individual group water schemes.
• emphasising the need for democratic accountability in the strategic management of schemes.
• developing a procedure for addressing member complaints, including provision of a complaints register.
Page
46
The National Federation of Group Water Schemes
• encouraging and facilitating the production of an annual GWS newsletter, informing members about
key issues, including water quality results.
• promoting the speedy dissemination of information to members - particularly in the case of emergencies – through the collation and constant updating of consumer contact details and the use of technological aids (such as text messaging) to advise members in regard to scouring of distribution lines etc.
• Establishing water safety planning as the core function of a group water scheme by
• designing a HACCP-based Quality Assurance System, with Standard Operating Procedures and
scheme-specific checklists.
• delivering training in this QA system to almost 400 group water schemes (as of 31 December 2011)
• implementing follow-up site inspections to mentor schemes in terms of the design and implementation
of QA monitoring/recording practices
• regularly addressing all aspects of a water safety plan – source protection, oversight of treatment systems
and effective management of the distribution network – in Rural Water News, as a consistent theme at
conferences and in face-to-face meetings with GWS managements.
• Addressing water conservation by
• recognising that high water loss is not sustainable, particularly where water is being treated to the highest potable standard (and at considerable cost).
• promoting universal metering as an essential tool in water supply management and participating in a
pilot project (under the auspices of the NRWMC) to assess the potential benefits of such a strategy.
• successfully persuading generally sceptical GWS committees that they needed to move towards universal metering and towards a charging policy based on usage and reflecting the real cost of drinking
water production and distribution.
• designing and delivering a training course
specifically focused on the reduction of
water demand in group water schemes.
• stressing that water conservation/waste
reduction is a process, part of which is convincing consumer/members that the amount
they pay for water is in their own hands.
Current and future priorities
It is now imperative that the achievements of recent years
become the foundation for ongoing development within
the GWS sector. It is especially important that the €900
million capital investment under the Rural Water
Programme is protected and that GWS compliance with
the drinking water standards continues to improve
towards a level that is on a par, at least, with public supplies. The NFGWS is determined to work with its partners in the delivery of these objectives and is confident
that with careful mentoring, assistance and support, the
GWS sector can, and will, successfully sustain the positive transformation of the past decade.
The universal metering strategy promoted by the NFGWS has resulted in
a dramatic reduction in water demand, not least on Corduff/Corracharra
GWS (above) where unaccounted for water is now less than 10%.
its role in the water services sector
Page
47
North Tipperary GWS representatives attending training in the NFGWS Quality Assurance System. In the period ahead, NFGWS staff will continue
to work with individual schemes to put in place the tailored checklists and operational monitoring programmes required for effective QA implementation. Priority will be given to schemes that are having difficulty meeting their regulatory obligations under the Drinking Water Regulations, particularly where microbiological failures are occurring.
Besides carrying out the many functions already outlined, the following key areas have been identified as requiring
our particular focus in the medium to long-term period ahead:
1. Achieving consistent compliance with the drinking water quality standards on all group water schemes.
2. The completion of training in the Quality Assurance System with all privately-sourced GWS committees, managers and operational staff and its continued extension to the committees and staff of publicly-sourced group
water schemes.
3. Verifying implementation of Quality Assurance procedures and systems on all group water schemes.
4. Delivering NFGWS administrative/management training programmes to all group water schemes – focusing particularly on those schemes that are organisationally weak and that may be having difficulty meeting their regulatory requirements. This will include helping schemes to meet the objectives outlined in the model rules of a cooperative GWS:
a) To source, protect, manage, and provide members with a reliable and environmentally sustainable
piped water supply of an adequate volume to meet members’ domestic and commercial requirements,
and of a quality that conforms to all statutory regulatory standards.
b) To organise and manage the Society in a manner that maintains ownership and control in the hands of
members who use the Society’s services.
c) To promote and improve drinking water supply standards through education, training, and development
programmes for Members and others.
d) To improve and develop the quality of water supply and distribution for Members.
5. Organising delivery of the three training courses specifically developed for the GWS sector by the WSTG in
association with the NFGWS. These include:
• Distribution System Operation and Maintenance
• Disinfection and basic filtration
• Sampling and monitoring of Drinking Water
Page
48
The National Federation of Group Water Schemes
6. Mentoring of GWS activists and operators, with particular attention to schemes recording failures with statutory
monitoring.
7. Working with the NRWSC and other statutory agencies to develop and deliver source protection strategies at
GWS level that will feed into the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD).
Delivering for the future
The NFGWS has the potential to deliver upon longer term strategies that will greatly contribute to and enhance the
national effort in relation to key social and environmental issues, as follows:
Water Awareness/Source Protection/WFD: The longer-term strategy of the Federation will focus on water safety
planning and on the wider achievement of environmental goals established under the water Framework Directive.
In this regard, we see the continuation and expansion of our training, education and development role as essential,
not least in protecting and sustaining the considerable investment that has already been made under the RWP. In this
regard, we see a real potential for the Federation in providing an awareness programme to mainstream educational
providers in relation to the roll-out of our courses for primary and second level schools (as described above). We
further see an expanded role for the federation in providing training to rural organisations regarding the importance
of protecting vulnerable raw water resources. Given that we are embedded in the rural water sector, we see the
Federation as an ideal vehicle for this effort.
In practical terms, we envisage the universal completion of preliminary source protection plans on all privatelysourced group water schemes by 2018 and will assist schemes in progressing to the next stage (i.e. the development
of full source protection plans).
Septic tanks: Given the particular issue of on-site waste water treatment systems and the enactment of recent legislation in this area, Water Services (Amendment Act) 2012, we see real potential in addressing this challenge
through the community-run GWS model, in terms of monitoring, desludging
and organising appropriate and affordable and cost-effective remediation. We
are convinced that the “bundling” approach already evolved in the GWS sector provides the Federation with the necessary expertise and experience to
co-ordinate sustained action in relation to resolving problems associated with
septic tanks.
Water Safety Planning/Quality Assurance: Our central focus will remain
the protection of public health through encouraging the implementation of
the NFGWS Quality Assurance System and ensuring that schemes have
monitoring and recording systems in place, as required under the Drinking
Water Regulations 2007. While we are already seeing verifiable successes in
this area, there is still much work to be done.
NFGWS staff
Over time, the Federation has opened four regional offices (Monaghan, Tuam,
Tullamore and Kiltimagh), as well as recruiting 10 employees (three of whom
are part-time). These work under the elected Board of Management with dayto-day staff management devolved to the National Co-ordinator.
Most NFGWS staff members have contributed
as speakers at the annual Rural Water
Conference and at other conferences also.
Pictured above is NFGWS Research &
Development Officer, Brian MacDonald.
its role in the water services sector
Page
49
The NFGWS staff is committed to providing a top class service and real value for money. While all staff members
have particular roles and responsibilities, the nature of the service provided requires versatility, adaptability,
patience and perseverance.
Staff attend relevant training courses as required. In light of their role in training GWS managers and activists, all
development staff members have achieved certification to FETAC Level 6 standard as trainers.
Given their wealth of experience in dealing with challenges within the water services sector generally, most staff
members have contributed as speakers and panel members at national conferences on issues ranging from source
protection to managing daily water demand and the implementation of quality assurance. In terms of their individual
roles and responsibilities, these can be summarised as follows:
Colm Brady (National Co-ordinator) is responsible for the overall day-to-day management of the Federation,
reporting to the Board of Management at regular Board meetings. He acts in a liaison capacity with Government
Departments and national agencies and represents the Federation on a range of agencies, including the NRWSC and
the WSTG.
Seán Clerkin (National Policy Adviser) is employed in a part-time capacity. As former National Co-ordinator, he
advises on the strategic direction of the Federation.
Brian MacDonald (Research & Development Officer) has responsibility for the production of all Federation publications, including the Annual Report and quarterly magazine, Rural Water News, as well as training material. In
addition, he is responsible for delivering the Quality Assurance and Performance Management System training programmes and is development officer for County Donegal.
Barry Deane (Joint Training Officer) is development officer for south Leinster and most of Munster. Based in the
NFGWS’s Tullamore office, he provides a validation service for group schemes within his region involved in DBO
contracts, advises in the development of training programmes, co-ordinates training (apart from QA) and delivers
training.
NFGWS management and staff pictured at a training event in 2010. Full staff meetings are held 3-4 times annually.
Page
50
The National Federation of Group Water Schemes
Joe Gallagher (Joint Training Officer) is development officer for Clare, Limerick, part of Leinster and
Roscommon. Based in the Tullamore office, he provides a validation service for group schemes within his region
involved in DBO contracts, advises in the development of training programmes, co-ordinates training (apart from
QA) and delivers training.
Karen Carney (Health & Safety Officer) is development officer for County Galway and advises the Federation
on H&S matters. Karen also advises on Health & Safety issues that need to be implemented on schemes. Karen is
based in Tuam.
Catríona Devaney (Validation Officer) is a part-time employee and provides DBO validation for schemes in the
western region, as well as providing clerical support to Tuam and Kiltimagh based staff.
Paul Connolly (Development Officer) is based in Kiltimagh and is responsible for GWS development in Mayo,
Sligo and Leitrim.
Jean Gibson (Quality Assurance Officer) based in Monaghan, Jean is development officer for Cavan, Monaghan,
Louth and Meath, performing DBO validation for schemes in these counties. In addition, Jean co-ordinates Quality
Assurance System training nationally and sits of the NRWSC.
Julie Brannigan (Clerical Officer) works on a part-time basis in the Monaghan head office, organising accounts,
the database and Federation website, amongst other duties.
Future funding of the NFGWS
Present arrangements: Under the Rural Water Programme State support is provided towards the work of the
National Federation of Group Water Schemes by way of an annual grant [c. €500,000]. In addition, individual group
water schemes contribute an annual affiliation fee of €5 per domestic connection which is considered as eligible
expenditure under the subsidy scheme (see Appendix 1 for the most recent available annual audited statement of
expenditure).
We believe that the Federation consistently delivers real value for money in terms of the State investment (i.e. with
limited personnel resources) providing an active daily educational and developmental support service for hundreds
of dispersed group water schemes from Bunn in North Donegal to Blackstairs in south Wexford and from Mountain
Park in the Cooley peninsula to Derycreeveen in Beara, West Cork.
Future requirements: The brief outline of our activities to-date and the very ambitious work schedule set out in
this document for the years ahead demonstrate real value for money. The NFGWS has been to the forefront in delivering innovation and modernisation in the GWS sector, in securing “buy-in” of major change, co-operation and
goodwill among its many members and end users.
There is general acceptance, from several published studies etc, that the Federation, with very limited resources,
has brought a unique experience to the table and that this has informed and benefitted the wider public debate about
a more efficient and cost effective approach to the delivery of drinking water services.
We believe that there is a compelling case for continuing the very reasonable financial support package for our
Federation so that this vital service can continue and develop into the future. It represents a small, but very worth
while, investment in the future of rural water services delivery.
its role in the water services sector
Page
51
Appendix 1
NFGWS Expenditure and Costs (for year ended 31 December 2010)
Item
Wages/Salaries, PAYE and PRSI
Travel, accommodation & subsistence expenses
Conference Facilities
84,419
9,280
31,142
Training Costs
27,387
Honoraria
Postage & Telephone
Light and Heat
46,739
6,000
28,372
3,187
Insurance
2,460
Office Equipment, Repairs & Maintenance
6,656
Rates
GSI Groundwater Project
Auditor Fees
Accountancy Fee
Professional Fees
ICOS Annual Fee
Bank Charges
Depreciation of fixtures, fittings and equipment
Loss on disposal of tangible assets
Total
52
486,523
Office Rental and Meeting Rooms
Printing, Advertising & Stationery
Page
€
3,061
5,950
4,840
4,598
8,683
8,562
1,126
15,423
746
785,154
The National Federation of Group Water Schemes
Appendix 2
Privately-sourced group water schemes that come under the Drinking Water Regulations, as of January
2012. Schemes currently being taken-in-charge by their local authority are returned as TIC.
Group Water Scheme
Carlow
Ballinabranna
Ballyellen
St Mullins Parish
[Glynn/St Mullins]
Cavan
Annagh
Ballymachugh
[Lavagh/Ballyheelin]
Billis [Billis/Lavey]
Bunnoe
Clifferna
Corlough
Crossdoney
Crosserlough
Dernakesh
Dhuish
Doobally
Drumkeery
Erne Valley
Farmoyle/Barraghy
[partly in Monaghan]
Glangevlin
Gowlan
Kildallon
Kilsherdany [Kill]
Milltown
Mountain Lodge
Templeport
Monreagh
Raheen Road
Ranaghan
Toonagh/Dysart
Treatment
Borewell
Borewell
Filtration + Chlorination
Chlorination
Spring
DAF treatment + UV + chlorination
Annagh Lough
Ozonisation + Filtration + chlorination
Domestic
connections
Borewell
Killone Lough
Lough Naminna
Borewell
Borewell
Lough Acrow/borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Lough George
Ballycullinan lough/borewell
Cork North
Aghern/Ballydaw
Borewell
Ballinguyroe & Tankardstown Spring
Blackpool/Curraglass
Borewell
Caherdrinny
Borewell
Chlorination
Ozonation + chlorination
DAF (with alum) + pressure filtration +
carbon filtration + UV + chlorination
Chlorination
Particle filtration + UV + chlorination
Pressure filtration + carbon filtration +
pH correction + chlorination
Chlorination
UV + chlorination
Particle filtration + UV + chlorination
DAF (with alum) + pressure filtration +
carbon filtration + UV + chlorination
UV + Sanosil disinfection
Chlorination
Chlorination
UV + chlorination
its role in the water services sector
Service
provider
365
40
DBO
Stand-alone
760
DBO
267
Borewell
Filtration + water softening + chlorination
412
Nadrageel Lough
DAF + biological active filtration + chlorination
550
Killynenagh Lough DAF + biological active filtration + chlorination
181
Lough Accurry
Filtration + ozonation + chlorination
583
Mountain springs + borewell
Filtration + chlorination
428
Lough Atrain
Pressure filtration + chlorination
320
Graddum Lough
DAF + biological active filtration
880
+ ozonation + activated carbon + chlorination
Barnagrow Lough
DAF + biological active filtration + chlorination
270
Annaghieren Lough DAF + biological active filtration + chlorination
250
Lough Nawbellion (Tents)
Dissolved air flotation + chlorination
80
Drumkeery Lough
DAF + biological active filtration + chlorination
443
Garty Lough
DAF + clarification + rapid gravity filtration
1,149
+ chlorination
Barraghy Lough
Clarification + pressure filtration +
510
pH correction + chlorination
Mountain spring
Simple filtration + chlorination
156
Spring/Garvagh Lough
Dissolved air flotation + chlorination
185
Borewell
Simple filtration + chlorination
340
Black Lough
DAF + biological active filtration + chlorination
118
Borewell + Lough Derrybrick
Simple filtration + chlorination
350
Lough Astural
DAF + biological active filtration + chlorination
560
Borewell
Oxidation + pressure filtration +
125
pH correction + chlorination
Clare
Beechwood Lawn/Bodyke
Killone
Kilmaley/Inagh
Kilnaboy
Lemenagh/Roughan
Lissycasey
Source(s)
DBO
DBO
DBO
DBO
DBO
DBO
DBO
DBO
DBO
DBO
DBO
DBO
DBO
Stand-alone
DBO
DBO
DBO
DBO
DBO
DBO
DBO
47
213
1,864
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
DBO
34
20
38
380
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
DBO
185
20
910
54
84
35
34
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
DBO
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Page
53
Group Water Scheme
Source(s)
Cork South
Ballyglass
Castlepark (Kinsale)
Clonmult
Clonpriest/Ballymadog
Farran
Gortroe
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Chlorination
pH correction + chlorination
Filtration + chlorination
Chlorination
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Chlorination
UV disinfection
None
UV + chlorination
Chlorination
Filtration + chlorination
Curraghalla
Downing
Graigue
Kilally [Kilally & Ballinrush]
Kilcredon
Walterstown
Cork West
Ballydonegan
Ballingurteen
Derricreeveen (Bere Island)
Insemore/Insebeg
[Ballingeary GWS]
Rossmore
Donegal
Bunn
Meenabool
Toraí [Tory island]
Townawilly
Galway
Abbey Kylemore
Anbally & District
Ardrahan
Ballinabanaba
Ballinakill, Moyard
Ballyaneen Rakerin
Page
54
Domestic
connections
32
40
36
50
Service
provider
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
76
30
30
32
90
6
Being TIC
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Connecting to PWS
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Being TIC
(+ social connection)
Borewell
Borewell
Chlorination
Nitrate removal + UV + chlorination
Borewell
Borewell
Spring
River
pH correction + manganese removal +
UV + chlorination
Manganese removal + UV + chlorination
pH correction + UV + chlorination
Slow sand filtration + chlorination
60
Chlorination
20
18
20
28
Being TIC
Stand-alone
Being TIC
Spring + borewell
Mountain spring
Loch ó thuaidh
Lough Amincheen
Slow sand filtration + UV + chlorination
None
UV + chlorine tablets
Filtration + ph adjustment + UV + chlorination
83
20
81
99
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Lough Ballinakill
Borewell
Media filtration + UV + chlorination
UV + chlorination
Pressure filtration + UV + chlorination
Media filtration + UV + chlorination
DAF + UV + chlorination
Media filtration + activated carbon filtration +
reverse osmosis + UV + chlorination
Pressure filtration + UV + chlorination
Chlorination
UV + chlorination
Media filtration + UV + chlorination
Chlorination
UV + chlorination
UV + chlorination
Pressure filtration + UV + chlorination
UV + chlorination
Media filtration + UV + chlorination
Chlorination
Chlorination
Chlorination
UV + chlorination
Media filtration + UV + chlorination
UV
UV + chlorination
Clarification + media filtration +
activated carbon filtration + UV + chlorination
Micro screen filtration + UV + chlorination
138
108
195
148
210
40
DBO
Stand-alone
DBO
DBO
DBO
DBO
290
DBO
Borewell
Ballyglass/Fiddane
Borewell
Ballymanagh (Craughwell)
Borewell
Balrobuckbeg
Borewell
Barnaderg/Gortbeg
Spring
Belclare
Borewell
Borewell
Belmont (Kilconly)
Bouyounagh/Ballyedmond Borewell + spring
Brierfield
Spring
Brockagh/Lisduff (Craughwell) Borewell
Bullaun, Loughrea
Borewell
Caherdine/Caherdevan
Borewell
Borewell
Cahereenlea (Athenry)
Caherlea/Gurrane
Borewell
Cahermorris/Glenrevagh
Borewell
Cappataggle District
Borewell
Carramore-Knock
Lough Corrib
Carrigan (Craughwell)
Village pump
CBC
Borewell
Claran/Knocklehard
Treatment
Lough Corrib
50
64
123
64
175
600
104
110
416
70
24
190
116
35
20
48
617
62
18
729
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Being TIC
DBO
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
DBO
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
DBO
Stand-alone
DBO
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
DBO
Stand-alone
Stand alone
DBO
The National Federation of Group Water Schemes
Group Water Scheme
Source(s)
Glinsk/Creggs
Gurteen/Cloonmore
Keelogues & Kilcolum
Kilchreest
Kilconierin
Kilcooly (Gurtymadden)
Kilcoona/Caherlistrane
Killasmuggaun
Killeen/Poulatoon
Lough Lung
Well
Spring
Borewell
Borewell
Kettle hole
Spring
Well
Borehole
Claretuam
Borewell
Spring pool
Cloonatleva
Cloonigney (Kilconnell)
Spring
Cloonkeen/Toomard
Borewell
Cloonluane (Renvyle)
Tully Lough
Clough/Cummer
Borewell
Borewell
Cluide (Cahermorris)
Coole
Borewell
Coolourty (Brierfield No. 2)
Borewell
Corohan [Milltown North East]
Borewell
Esker/Eyrecourt
Borewell
Feigh East & West
Borewell
Gallagh/Brownsgrove
Open well spring
Kiltevna
Kiltiernan
Domestic
connections
Chlorination
8 + social
Pressure filtration + UV + chlorination
70
UV + chlorination
64
Chlorination
41
Pressure filtration + ozonation + UV + chlorination 152
UV + chlorination
44
UV
42
UV + chlorination
15
Chlorination
15
UV + chlorination
243
UV + chlorination
51
UV
40
Media filtration + activated carbon filtration +
540
UV + chlorination
Media filtration + UV + chlorination
408
UV + chlorination
50
UV + chlorination
70
UV + chlorination
50
Media filtration + UV + chlorination
137
Chlorination
15
Pressure filtration + UV + chlorination
970
Chlorination
16
Chlorination
14
Inch/Foildaun
Kells
Borewell
Upland stream
Borewell
Spring
Spring
Service
provider
Stand-alone
DBO
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
DBO
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
DBO
DBO
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
DBO
Stand-alone
DBO
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
(+ commercial connection)
Pressure filtration + UV + chlorination
67
Media filtration + activated carbon filtration +
335
reverse osmosis + UV + chlorination
Knockauns
Borewell
Chlorination
22
Lettergesh/Mullaghgloss
Mountain stream Sand filtration + carbon filtration + UV + chlorination 120
DAF + UV + chlorination
450
Lettermullen (Scéim na nOileáin) Loch Hibirt
Lisananey/Liskeavy
Borewell
Chlorination
33
Looscaun
Borewell
Chlorination
16
Lowville No.1
Borewell
Pressure filtration + UV + chlorination
60
Lydacan
Borewell
Media filtration, UV and chlorination
132
Spring
Media filtration, UV and chlorination
590
Menlough [Menlough/Skehana]
Milltown Community
Clare River
DAF + UV + chlorination
442
Moyglass (Loughrea)
Borewell
UV
125
Newcastle (Aughrim)
Spring
UV
28
New Inn
Borewell
Sand filtration + UV + chlorination
200
Oldthort
Borewell
Chlorination
17
Peterswell Castledaly
4 x Borewells
Clarification + Media filtration + activated
273
carbon filtration + reverse osmosis + UV + chlorination
Roo
Borewell
None
19
Rhynn/Killeeneen
Borewell
Pressure filtration + ozonation + UV + chlorination 140
Rusheens
Borewell
UV + chlorination
75
Borewell
Chlorination
21
Seehan (Gort)
Tierneevin
Borewell
Chlorination
38
Toberowen/Lissybroder
Spring
Filtration + UV + chlorination
237
Tubber
Borewell
Chlorination
60
Tynagh
Borewell
Chlorination
47
Kerry
Ballintarman
Bonane
Cappanalea
Spring
2 x Borewells
Treatment
pH correction + chlorination
Chlorination
pH correction + chlorination
Chlorination
Chlorination
its role in the water services sector
50
134
7
DBO
DBO
Stand-alone
DBO
DBO
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
DBO
DBO
DBO
DBO
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
DBO
Stand-alone
DBO
Stand-alone
DBO
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
DBO
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Being TIC
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
(+ social connection)
36
100
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Page
55
Group Water Scheme
Lougher
Lyranes
Rossdohan
Tuosist
Source(s)
Upland stream
Borewell
3 x wells
Lough Gowlaun
Kildare
Ballindoolin
Borewell
Ballyroe [Ballyroe/Leinster Lodge] Borewell
Kilteel
Well
Lippstown/Narraghmore
Spring
Usk/Gormanstown
Gallery + borewell
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
DBO
Borewell
Spring
Borewell
Borewell
2 x Borewells
2 x Borewells
Chlorination
Filtration + chlorination
UV + chlorination
UV + chlorination
UV + chlorination
Iron & manganese filtration + chlorination
Iron & manganese filtration + pH correction +
UV + chlorination
Chlorination
Chlorination
Chlorination
Chlorination
UV + chlorination
UV + chlorination
62
60
69
50
134
16
110
18
16
44
17
33
13
Stand-alone
DBO
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
DBO
DBO
DBO
Stand-alone
DBO
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand -alone
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Spring
Borewell
Borewell
Spring
Chlorination
Filtration + chlorination
Chlorination
None
UV + chlorination
Chlorination
UV + chlorination
Chlorination
38
534
89
70
100
40
195
320
Stand-alone
DBO
DBO
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
DBO
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Borewell
Mountain stream
Spring
Mountain spring
Borewell
Chlorination
Temporary filtration + chlorination
Chlorination
Silver & Copper disinfection
Clarification + filtration + UV + chlorination
250
34
102
67
190
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
DBO
Borewell
Borewell
Chlorination
Chlorination
60
60
DBO
Connecting to PWS
Borewell
Borewell
Shallow well
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Highrath, The
Kilree [Kilree/Stoneyford]
Kilrush [Barna/Kilrush]
Listerlin
Maddockstown
Newtown/Ovenstown
Parks & Rathclevin
Seskin/Lisdowney/Ballyconra
Tubrid Lower
Tullaroan
Windgap
Leitrim
Carrigallen
Cornashamsoge
Leckaun
Mohercregg
Sliabh an Iarainn
Limerick
Baggotstown
Baile Nua [Newtown Clarina]
Page
56
Service
provider
Stand-alone
Being TIC
Being TIC
Being TIC
28
40
60
380
189
Kilkenny
Balief/Clomantagh
Ballycallan Muintir
Ballymack
Bawnmore
Caherlesk Coolagh
Castleinch & District
Castlewarren
Laois
Attanagh
Ballacolla
Ballypickas
Barrowhouse
Cullahill
Donaghmore
Errill
The Heath
Domestic
connections
Chlorination
27
Chlorination
22
Iron & manganese removal + chlorination
61
Chlorination
125
Chlorination
Chlorination
Chlorination
Chlorination
DAF + UV + chlorination
(partly in Wicklow)
Clifden
Clomantagh/Kiloshulan
Cuffes Grange
Dunbell No. 2
Dunmore
Graine
Treatment
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Chlorination
Chlorination
Chlorination
Chlorination
Chlorination
UV + chlorination
UV + chlorination
UV + chlorination
Chlorination
UV + chlorination
Chlorination
(+ commercial connection)
52
35
25
16
27
46
14
124
30
76
53
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
The National Federation of Group Water Schemes
Group Water Scheme
Ballinamona
Ballinvreena
Ballybricken
Ballyduff
Ballyorgan
Barnagh-Glendarrough
Boherard/Crean
Bulgaden
Caherline/Newtown
Cappagh
Carnane
Clovers
Coshma [Killeen/Coshma]
Craggs/Borrigone
Croagh & Farrandonnelly
Glenbrohane
Glenroe/Ballintubber
[Ballintubber Lower]
Glenstal
Grannagh
Griston
Killeedy
Kilfinny
Knockainey
Lough [Grange/Lough Gur]
Longford
Clonmore/Kilmore
Fostra
Louth
Ballymakenny/Sandpit
Drybridge/Waterunder
Grangebellew
Mountain Park
Sheepgrange
Tullyallen
Mayo
Attymass/Kilgellia
Ayle
Ballycroy
Barnacarroll
Belderrig
Brackloon/Spaddagh
Buckagh/Furnace
Callow Lake
Carra [Carha]
Clew Bay
Cloonmore/Cloonlavis
Cloonmore/Rooskey
Creggduff
Curramore (Ballinrobe)
Curraunboy
Cushin
Derryvohy
Drum/Binghamstown
Drummin
Source(s)
Borewell
Borewell
2 x borewells
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
2 x borewells
Borewell
Borewell
3 x borewells
Borewell
Borewell
Treatment
Domestic
connections
UV + chlorination
70
UV + chlorination
70
UV + chlorination
230
Chlorination
36
Chlorination
47
Chlorination
28
Chlorination
35
Manganese removal + UV + chlorination
100
Chlorination
250
UV + chlorination
205
Chlorination
312
UV + chlorination
16
UV + chlorination
103
UV + chlorination
58
Filtration + UV + chlorination
51
UV + chlorination
100
Chlorination
40
Service
provider
Stand-alone
DBO
DBO
DBO
DBO
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
DBO
DBO
DBO
DBO
Stand-alone
DBO
Stand-alone
DBO
Stand-alone
DBO
Chlorination
UV + chlorination
Chlorination
Chlorination
Chlorination
Chlorination
UV + chlorination
170
140
61
242
300
170
594
Borewell
Spring
Chlorination
Chlorination
42
50
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Spring
Borewell
Borewell
Sanosil disinfection
Sanosil disinfection
Chlorination
Sanosil disinfection
Chlorination
UV + Sanosil disinfection
657
54
25
46
56
170
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Shallow spring
Ayle Lough
Mountain stream
Spring
Mountain stream
Caheer Lough
Mountain stream
Callow Lough Upper
Carra well
Sanosil disinfection
Chlorination
Filtration + chlorination
Chlorination
Membrane filtration + chlorination
Nano filtration + chlorination
None
Pressure filtration + UV + chlorination
Chlorination
DAF + UV + chlorination
Chlorination
Clarification + UV + chlorination
Chlorination
Sand filtration + UV + chlorination
UV
Chlorination
Chlorination
Chlorination
Nano filtration + chlorination
380
65
389
136
70
151
40
571
61
385
101
250
235
95
35
74
110
138
50
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
DBO
Stand-alone
DBO
DBO
Stand-alone
DBO
Stand-alone
DBO
Stand-alone
DBO
Stand-alone
DBO
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
DBO
Spring
Spring
Well
Lough Mask
Spring
Spring
Ballyclogher well
Spring
Lough Lugacolliwee
its role in the water services sector
DBO
DBO
DBO
DBO
DBO
Stand-alone
DBO
Page
57
Group Water Scheme
Domestic
connections
Drumsheen/Newtown
Spring
Chlorination
32
Errew
Killeen shallow spring
Chlorination
30
Fahy
Clogher Lough
Nano filtration + chlorination
628
Funshinagh/Cross
Lough Corrib
UV + ozonation + chlorination
113
Glencorrib
Lough Corrib
Membrane filtration + chlorination
394
Glenhest
Mountain river
Membrane filtration + chlorination
155
Irishtown
Borewell
Chlorination
341
Johnstown
Spring
Chlorination
171
Kilcolman/Facefield
Spring
Chlorination
145
Killasser
4 x springs
Ozonation + Granulated activated carbon +
340
UV + chlorination
Killaturley
Spring
UV + chlorination
387
Killeen
Lough Cunnell
Nano filtration + chlorination
360
Killgalligan
Spring
None
22
Kilmeena
Ballinlough
Membrane filtration + chlorination
400
Kilmovee/Urlaur
Lough Urlaur
Membrane filtration + chlorination
703
Laghta
Owennacunny River Membrane filtration + pH correction + chlorination 117
Lough Carra
Lough Carra
Filtration + ozonation + chlorination
600
Lough Mask/Creevagh
Lough Mask
Ozonation + chlorination
363
Loughanemon/Ballinasmalla
Well
UV + chlorination
57
Midfield
Spring
Chlorination
405
Moylaw
Spring
Filtration + UV + chlorination
64
Nephin Valley
Mountain stream
Media filtration + ozonation + chlorination
630
Parke
Derryhick Lake
Clarification + UV + chlorination
370
PBKS
Carramore Lough
Clarification + UV + chlorination
768
Pollavaddy
Spring
UV + chlorination
55
Robeen
Lough Carra
Chlorination
180
Rosmoney
Spring
Chlorination
21
Rossport
Spring
Chlorination
80
Roy Bingham
Spring
Chlorination
47
Shanwar/Belgarriff
Callow Lough Upper
Chlorination
70
Sraheens
Lough Conn
Ozonation + UV + chlorination
240
Tooreen/Aghamore
Spring
Chlorination
391
Treannagleragh
Spring
None
52
Meath
Kiltale
Meath Hill
Source(s)
2 + springs
4 x springs
Treatment
Pressure + chlorination
Chlorination
Monaghan
Aughnashalvey
Kilcorran Lough
DAF + chlorination
Churchill & Oram
Milltown Lough
DAF + chlorination + slow sand filtration
Corduff/Corracharra
Lough Namachree
DAF + chlorination
Donaghmoyne
Lough Garaman
Membrane filtration + chlorination
Doohamlet
Crinkill Lough
DAF + chlorination
Drumgole
Annaghmakerrig Lough
DAF + chlorination
Glaslough/Tyholland
EmyLough
DAF + chlorination
Killanny & Reaghstown
Moynalty Lough
DAF + chlorination
Magheracloone
Greaghlone Lough
Slow sand filtration + chlorination
Stranooden
White Lough
DAF + chlorination
Truagh
Loch Mór
DAF + chlorination
Tydavnet
Lough Antrawer + 5 x borewells
DAF + chlorination
Offaly
Aghancon
Ballycurragh spring
Ballinagar
Dalgan spring
Ballyboy
Ballywilliam spring
Ballykilleen/Ballyfore Dromcooley Hill borewells
Page
58
UV + chlorination
UV + chlorination
UV + chlorination
UV + chlorination
Service
provider
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
DBO
Stand-alone
DBO
DBO
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
DBO
Stand-alone
DBO
Stand-alone
DBO
DBO
DBO
DBO
DBO
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
DBO
DBO
DBO
DBO
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
DBO
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
208
267
DBO
Stand-alone
681
429
538
1,496
364
355
773
904
800
1,033
809
969
DBO
DBO
DBO
Stand-alone
DBO
DBO
DBO
DBO
Stand-alone
DBO
DBO
DBO
32
560
80
300
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
The National Federation of Group Water Schemes
Group Water Scheme
Source(s)
Boher Leamonaghan
Castletown spring
Bracknagh
Kilnantoge spring
Cadamstown
Sheskin well
Clareen
Clashroe spring
Clondelara
Borewell
Killeigh
Toberfin spring + Killurine spring +
Cloneygowran borewell
Meelaghans
Toberfin spring
Mount Lucas
Borewell
Rath [Eglish & Drumcullen] Springs & borewell
Tubber
Ballybeg spring
Roscommon
Brosna
Spring
Corracreigh
Spring
Gorthaganny
Spring
Mid Roscommon
2 x springs
Oran Ballintubber
2 x springs
Peake-Mantua
Spring
Pollacat Springs [Polecat Springs] Spring
Treatment
Chlorination
Chlorination
Chlorination
Chlorination
Chlorination
Chlorination
Domestic
connections
300
200
68
303
18
1,260
37
96
407
300
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Chlorination
Filtration + UV + chlorination
Chlorination
Filtration + UV + chlorination
Filtration + UV + chlorination
Chlorination
Filtration + ozonation + chlorination
122
352
143
750
388
37
395
Stand-alone
DBO
Stand-alone
DBO
DBO
Stand-alone
DBO
104
110
90
74
27
395
58
200
301
493
154
103
14
DBO
DBO
DBO
DBO
Stand-alone
DBO
DBO
DBO
DBO
DBO
DBO
DBO
Stand-alone
30
264
29
70
48
19
76
22
24
15
5
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Chlorination
UV + chlorination
UV + chlorination
Chlorination
Sligo
Filtration + chlorination
Ballinfad [Corrick] Lough Arrow + Mountain spring
Ballintrillick
Mountain springs
Filtration + chlorination
Beltra
Underground stream
Filtration + chlorination
Benbulben
Spring
Filtration + chlorination
Carrowdargney
Well
None
Castlebaldwin
Lough Arrow
Coagulation + Flocculation + chlorination
Castletown
Spring + mountain stream
Filtration + chlorination
Culfadda
Wells
Filtration + chlorination
Drum East
Mountain stream
Filtration + chlorination
Geevagh Highwood
Lough Arrow
Coagulation + Flocculation + chlorination
Keash
Lough Labe
Filtration + chlorination
Mountain spring
Filtration + chlorination
Keelogyboy [Calry]
Lecarrow
Well
UV
Tipperary North
Abbeyville
Ardcroney
Ashill
Ballinderry
Barnane
Brittas
Carrigahorig/Milford
Castlecranna
Castleiney A
Clobanna
Corbally
Couraguneen
Cunnahurt/Knockalton
Drombane [Ballina]
Drombane [Thurles]
Elmhill/Ballymackey
Fantane
Frolic Carney
Garrynamona/Cormackstown
Graigue/Pouldine
Borewell
Spring
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
Borewell
UV + chlorination
UV + chlorination
UV + chlorination
UV + chlorination
UV + chlorination
UV + chlorination
UV + chlorination
UV + chlorination
UV + chlorination
Chlorination
UV
UV + chlorination
UV + chlorination
UV + chlorination
Chlorination
UV + Sanosil disinfection
UV + chlorination
UV + chlorination
Chlorination
UV + chlorination
Service
provider
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
(+ social connection)
(+ commercial connection)
its role in the water services sector
21
95
24
70
47
24
38
147
110
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Being TIC
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Page
59
Group Water Scheme
Source(s)
Gurteenakilla
Borewell
Borewell
Kilbarron
Kilriffith/Kilmore [Bawn/Kilriffith] Spring
Killeen
Borewell
Lacka
Borewell
Lisheenaclountha
Borewell
Luska
Borewell
Borewell
Mota [Mota/Coolbawn]
Moyne
Borewell
Newhill & Leigh
Borewell
Patrickswell
Borewell
Pike/Knockshegowna [Ballingarry] Borewell
Rahealty
Borewell
Rathfalla
Borewell
Shalee/Kiltyrome
Borewell
Tonagha/Laharden
Borewell
Tullaheady
Borewell
Tipperary South
Inchirourke/Fennor
Kilcoran/New Burgess
Toor Kilcash
Waterford
Ballydurn
Monaminane
Ross-Kildarmody
Westmeath
Ballybroder/Ballycallaghan
[mainly supplies homes in Offaly]
Multyfarnham
Wexford
Adamstown
Blackstairs
Borrmount/Edermine
Kilanerin
Knocknina [The Rock]
Mullawn
Wicklow
Askinagap
Ballingate
Ballyfolan
Baltyboys
Blainroe
Blakestown/Brittonstown
Cornagower
Hempstown
Oldcourt
Tinode
Page
60
Treatment
Domestic
connections
UV + chlorination
30
UV + chlorination
64
UV + chlorination
100
UV + chlorination
19
UV + chlorination
37
UV + chlorination
36
UV + chlorination
26
UV + chlorination
26
Iron & manganese filtration + pH correction + chlorination 413
UV + chlorination
UV + chlorination
80
UV + chlorination
89
UV + chlorination
21
UV + chlorination
140
UV + chlorination
18
Chlorination
20
UV + chlorination
44
UV + chlorination
5
Service
provider
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
(+ commercial connection)
Shallow well
Borewell
Spring
Chlorination
UV + chlorination
Chlorination
90
100
28
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Being TIC
Borewell
Spring
Spring
UV
UV
UV + chlorination
25
29
20
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Spring
Chlorination
21
Stand-alone
Borewell
Nitrate removal + pH correction + UV
2
Stand-alone
Borewell
Chlorination
206
(+ commercial connection)
Mountain stream
DAF + UV + chlorination
1,023
Borewell
UV + chlorination
126
Borewell
Iron & manganese filtration + pH correction + chlorination100
Borewell
pH correction +chlorination
41
Borewell
pH correction + chlorination
30
Borewell
Spring
Spring
Borewell
Borewell
Spring
Borewell
Spring
Spring
Spring
Stand-alone
Iron & manganese filtration + pH correction + chlorination 18
pH correction + chlorination
32
None
15
Radon removal + chlorination
87
pH correction + chlorination
100
Filtration + chlorination
29
Chlorination
21
None
124
None
28
None
19
DBO
DBO
DBO
Stand-alone
DBO
DBO
DBO
Stand-alone
DBO
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Stand-alone
Being TIC
Stand-alone
The National Federation of Group Water Schemes
Appendix 3
Publicly-sourced group water schemes that come under the Drinking Water Regulations, as of January
2012 (based largely on local authority returns for 2010 as published by the EPA).
Note: There is considerable variation in terms of the operation of publicly-sourced schemes. Whereas GWS committees
remain active on many, the distribution network of others is managed de facto by the relevant local authority.
Group Water Scheme
Cavan
Castlerahan [CMM]
Derryvony
Killinkere
Poles
Clare
Aughinish, New Quay
Ballard GWS
Ballinacarra
Ballinagun West, Drumellihy
Ballingaddy
Ballinruane
Ballycar
Ballycarroll
Ballyconnoe
Ballygirreen
Ballykett
Ballymakea
Ballymarkham, Kildrum
Ballymorris
Ballynote
Ballysheenmore
Ballyvorgal/Belvoir
Baltard
Breafa
Brisla
Cahercanivan, Lack West
Caherfeenick/Doughmore
Caherkine
Cahersherkin
Caherycahill
Cappa Rossmanagher
Carnanes/Leadmore
Carrigerry
Carrokeel/Kilshanny
Carrownteedaun
Castlecrine, Fortwilliam
Castlequarter
Clarefield, Blackweir
Clohanes
Clohanmore/Clohanbeg
Clonadrum
Clonlaheen
Clonmoney No.2
Clonolia
Clonoughter
Cloughlea
Coolisteigue
Coolmeen
Corbally
Group Water Scheme
Corbally/Danganbrack
Corlack/Clonmoney
Cragg
Craggaunowen
Cree, Clonwhite, Clonina
Cross, Kilbaha
Dangan
Danganella East
Derryfadda
Donnyvarden
Doonmore No.2
Dough/Spainish Point
Drumline/Deerpark/Clonmoney
Dunsallagh, Killeran
Farrihy
Feenagh
Fox and Geese
Garraunboy
Glendine
Gleninagh
Gower Hall
Gowerhass
Greagans
Kilbarron
Killimer
Kilmacduane
Knappogue
Knockatinty
Knocknagoug
Knockpatrick
Leagard Sth
Leitrim/Shyan
Lisdeen
Lisheenfruir
Lislanahan
Manusmore
Monvanna/Ballykett
Moyarts West
Moyasta
Moyglass/Knocknahilla
Newline/Cloonfada
Portdrine No. 2
Poulnagun
Querrin
Quins Pool/Ballycannon
Rahone
Rathfolan
Roo West
Schragh
Seafield
Spancillhill/Clooney
Group Water Scheme
Toovagherea, Kilmoon
Tullabrack
Tullaher
Williamstown
Woodmount (Gurrane)
Cork (North)
Drumsligo/Drumdowney
Cork (South)
Lower Killeens
Quarry Hall
Donegal
Alt
Ballymagroarty
Churchill
Crownalaghey
Culdaff
Derrykillew
Gleneely
Meenreagh
Galway
Abbert No 2
Abbert
Aillbhui, Rosmuc
Aillebrack
Annaghdown
Ard Aoibhin, Monivea
Ballinlass, Mountbellew
Ballintleva
Ballyeamonn, Spiddal
Ballyfruit, Headford
Ballyglass, Ahascragh
Ballywilliam
Bolluisce (An Spideal)
Booklagh, Ballymoe.
Brackloon, Dunmore
Bunnahevally, Kilcurrivard
BushyPark
Caherfinisker
Cahernasilleany/Kiltrogue
Carnmore No. 2 (Kiltullagh)
Carraghbrown
Carraghy (Claregalway)
Carraig Thiar (Cornamona)
Carranurlaur
Cashla No. 1
Castlegar/Lissyegan
Castlelambert, Knocknacreva
its role in the water services sector
Group Water Scheme
Claregalway No 2
Claregalway No.1
Cloghbrack Lakeside
Clontuskert
Cloon (Claregalway)
Cloonacauneen
Clooncun, Glenamaddy
Cloonmore/Killilane
Coillin (Carna)
Coolarne
Cornamucklagh
Corofin/Ballintubber
Corrolough-Pollshask
Cregannamore/Moneymore
Criminagh/Lettermore
Cuillagh
Currenrue, Kinvara
Derrydonnell
Doughiska No. 1
Doughiska No. 2
Dunloughan, Ballyconneely
Errisbeg [Errisbeg & Inishnee]
Fartown
Garrafrauns
Glengowla (Gibbons)
Kilbannon (includes Kilgervin)
Killasolan
Killeely/Kilcolgan
Killeen/Bruckey
Killough GWS
Kiltomer No. 3
Kiltulla, Athenry
Kiniska, Claregalway
Knockbrack
Knockillaree, Oughterard
Knockmascahill
Kylemore, Laurencetown
Lackaghmore
Lavally No. 3 (Higgins)
Lettercallow (Leitir Caladh)
Lettermullen No.2
Lisheenavalla
Lisheenkyle
Loughrea Rural
Loughwell (Leamhcoill)
Lowville No.2
Mannin
Masonbrook, Loughrea
Mid-Galway GWSS Phase 3
Mira
Moanbaun
Page
61
Group Water Scheme
Moher
Moorpark
Moy
Mullacuttra
Mulrock
Murvey/Dolan
Newbridge
Newtowndaly
Parkroe
Perssepark (Ballinasloe)
Ratesh/Ardour
Shannagurrane
Spiddal
Tarramuid No 2, Oranmore
Tonroe
Toureen/Tarrea
Tully, Thornfield
Tyrone
Kerry
Abbeydorney/Killflynn
Anablaha/Tooreenamult
Ardaneanig
Ardteegalvin
Asdee
Ballahantourig
Ballinorig East (PS)
Ballyline
Ballymacaquim Abbeydorney
Ballynoneen
Beaufort
Bedford/Knockane
Brosna/Knocknagoshel
Castlequin
Cilín Liath
Clanmaurice
Commaun
Coolcorcoran
Coolick
Coolkeragh
Cordal/Killmurray
Curraheen (PS)
Currow Hill
Dawros
Dooncaha Ext.
Dooneen (Castleisland)
Dromin/Kilderry
Gortshanavalla
Inch
Kilcusnin (PS)
Kilmorna
Kiltomey (PS)
Knockeen
Laccabaun
Lismongane/Greenagh
Lyreacrompane
Meanus/Gortnascarry
Meenbanivane
Page
62
Group Water Scheme
Muingaphuca
Pilgrim Hill
Saleen
Shanera (PS)
Skahanagh
Spa/Tiernaboul
Kildare
Eadestown
Kilmead & District
Mount Prospect/Clonbrin
Kilkenny
Airmount
Annamult
Ardra
Ballybrassil
Ballynearla
Coolhill-Cullentragh
Dungooly
Dunkitt
Gaulsmills-Ballynamorahan
Gaulsmills-Cappagh
Greenville
Hermitage
Jerpointchurch
Kilbrickan
Kilmurry
Lacken-Rathmoyle
Legan (Ashglen/Ballydonnell)
Luffany-Ballygorey
Moatpark
Newline Callan
Newtown Mooncoin
Peafield
Sugarstown
Yellow Road
Laois
Ballyadams
Ballybrophy
Ballycarnan
Ballyfin
Ballyfinn
Bealady
Clonkeen
Clonmore
Clonnany
Clonreher
Crannagh (Phase 1)
Dereen Durrow
Dunmore Demese
Killamuck
Kyleclonhobart
Kyletalesha
Lea Road No .2
Raheen
Sleaty Road
Group Water Scheme
Springhill
The Rock
Tonduff
Vicarstown 1,2,3
Leitrim
Aghagrania
Anfield
Ardlogher/Cornagher
Attyfinlay
Aughavas
Aughawillan
Ballinagleragh
Bellanaboy
Carrickmakeegan
Cartown
Castlefore
Castleroggy
Cleenahoo/Lisnatullan
Cloncolry
Cloonaquin
Cloonbonaigh
Cloone
Cloonsarn
Cloonturk
Corderry-Peyton
Corderry-Peyton (ext. to
Tooman)
Cornabrone/Aughaslan
Cornacloy
Cornageeha
Corraleehan
Corraterrif
Creagh
Drumaleague
Drumany/Corrabeagh
Drumbohar/Drumgowla
Drumcree
Drumduff/Carrick Rd
Drumgowla (Corlea)
Drumgrania
Drumharkin/Drumroosk
Drumhirk/Lear
Drumraine/Costra
Eden/Cornagowna
Effernagh
Erriff
Fawn/Killarkin
Fearglass
Foxborough/Lisduff
Glenboy/Glenfarne
Glencar
Glostermin North
Gort Rue
Gortconnellan
Gortlettragh
Gorvagh/Drumloan
Hartley/Cloonshebane
Keelagh/Bornacoola
Group Water Scheme
Keeldra No. 2
Keshcarrigan
Kilbracken
Killea/Straduffy
Killooman
Killyvehy
Kilmaddaroe
Kinkeen
Laughta
Lavareen
Leitrim Village
Lisdadan/Tawaymore
Lisdrumfarna/Lisdrumrea
Lisduff/Cornaslieve
Lismoyle/Coolcrieve
Lisseighan/Corbally
Lough Erril
Loughside
Mohermelia
Mullagh/Gortinee
Mullaghboy/Drumbranned
Mullies Brackery
Newtowngore
Oghill
Rosharry
Rossinver/Dooard
School road/Black road
Tarmon
Tawnyfeacle
Toomans/Clooncumber
Toomans/Gortnagullion
Tully
Limerick
Ballianima no 2
Ballincaroona
Ballinlee Parkroe
Ballycullane
Ballyvarra
Bridgewood
Camas Bruff
Carraig west
Castleroberts Adare
Clorane
Cooga Upper
Coolroe
Courtmatrix/Killeheen
Doon South
Drominboy, Lisnagry
Feoghana/Castlemahon
Glenduff
Glenfield
Gooig, Clooncommin
Killeline
Killoughteen
Kishyquirke
Leaheys
Lisnagry
The National Federation of Group Water Schemes
Group Water Scheme
Lurraga
Reens Kilscannell
Reinroe Knockanes
Rivers Mountshannon
Robertstown
Rossbrien
Shangarry
Shanid Lower
Tankardstown
Tervoe
Toher Road
Towerhill
Longford
Abbeyshrule
Aghagreagh
Allenagh
Ardagh
Aughnacliffe
Ballinascraw
Ballincurry
Ballycloughan
Barnacor
Barney
Carraghmannagh
Carrickduff
Clogher/Rynne
Clonbalt
Cloncullen
Clondra
Cloneen Dromod
Clonellan/Ballagh
Cloonback
Clooncolligan
Cloonturk
Colehill
Corglass
Corneddan/Clontumpher
Crossea
Curryline
Derawly
Derryharrow
Drimure
Drumbawn
Drumhaldry
Drumnacross
Drumury
Enaghan
Esker Cloncowley
Ferefad Lower
Ferefad Upper
Fihora
Forgney
Freehalman/Cloonahard
Gaigue
Glebe
Glen
Gurteen
Group Water Scheme
Kilcoursey
Kiltyreher
Legan
Legga
Lisduff/Trillick
Lismore
Lisnanagh
Lisryan
Moydow
Muckerstaff
Rincoola/Ballyboy
Shanmullagh
Smear/Crott
Stonepark
Taghshinny
Thureen/Corrigeen
Toome
Tullyvrane
Whitehill
Whiterock
Mayo
Abbeyquarter
Aghadoon
Annagh
Ardboley
Ards/Currane
Ballindrehid
Ballinlough
Ballinvilla No. 1
Ballinvilla No. 2
Ballyfarnagh/Magheraboy
Ballyholan
Ballymartin
Ballynanerron, Partry
Ballysokerry/Rosserk
Behy (Céide Fields)
Bekan & District
Belcarra Community
Bleanaskil
Bolyebrin
Brackloon (Shrule)
Brackloon (Westport)
Breaffy
Bunadober (Ballyhaunis)
Caherduff (The Neale)
Cahermaculick
Cahir (Louisburg)
Carne (Belmullet)
Carramore
Carranglough (Bonnisconlon)
Carranaradh
Carras District
Carrowcrum (Bonnisconlon)
Carrowmore Hill
Carrowmore (Louisburg)
Carrowreagh (Killala)
Carrowreagh (Kiltimagh)
Group Water Scheme
Cartron
Cashel (Charlestown)
Castelconnor/Corrimbla North
Castlegar
Castlenageeha
Castlereagh
Cave
Cloghan (Westport)
Clogher (Turlough)
Clogher (Westport)
Cloonboy
Cloonfadda (Killala)
Cloongee (Foxford)
Cloongowla
Cloonislaun
Cloontakillew
Comminch
Coogue
Cordarragh
Corlummin Lower
Cortoon (Kiltimagh)
Creggaun
Crimlin/Ross
Crumpaun/Achill
Cuillatinny/Liscat
Curraghmore/Cloonkeen
Cushlough
Dalgan
Derreens
Derry/Knock
Derrymore (Srah)
Derrynameel/Derrycorrib
Devlis/Knockbrack
Dooega
Doogort No. 2 (Achill)
Doohoma/Derrycorrib
Doohoma
Dooniver (Bunnacurry)
Dooyork
Drumminroe West
Dugort No. 1 (Achill)
Dugort East [Toontanta]
Elly/Blacksod [Oiligh]
Emlybeg Common/Carne
Emlybeg North
Fairfield
Farnaught (Westport)
Foxpoint [Barnatra]
Friarsquarter
Garryduff
Glenamoy
Glencastle
Glenhest Road
Gurteen (Westport)
Gurteen (Shrule)
Gurteen/Carrowkeel
Horsepark
Keenaghbeg (Keenagh)
its role in the water services sector
Group Water Scheme
Kilgarriff/Larganboy
Kilkeeran
Kilkelly Road
Killawalla
Kilmore (Kilkelly)
Killerduff (Ballycastle)
Kilmore
Kinlough (Headford)
Knockatubber
Knockhalina
Knocknageeha (Newport)
Knockreagh
Lacken North
Lecarrow (Ballyhaunis)
Lehinch No. 2
Lisbrin
Lissatava
Logboy Agricultural
Lough Mask Road
Mayo Abbey Villages
Meelickmore
Melcomb (Newport)
Morahan (Belmullet)
Mount Jubilee
Mountbrown
Moylough
Muings
Newtown White
North Coast
Oxford/Greyfield
Pollronaghan
Pullagurraun
Pullathomas
Quignalacka
Quignamanger/Farrangarode
Rahard
Ramolin/Brodella North
Rathcash
Rathduff
Rathfran
Rathglass
Rockfield No. 1
Rockfield No. 2
Ross/Cortoon
Saulia
Shammer
Shraheens (Achill)
Shraheens (Aughagower)
Skehavard (2)
Skevard (1)
Slievenagark
Srah
Tallagh Hill
Tallaghan West
Tallaghanbawn
Tallaghanduff Bawn
Tallaghanduff
Thornhill (Kiltimagh)
Page
63
Group Water Scheme
Tourmakeady
Treankeel
Treenlaur II
Treenlaur
Tullyegan
Turlough (High Meadow)
Turlough/Laghtavarry
Valley1 (Achill)
Valley 2 (Castlebar)
Valley 3 (Achill)
Offaly
Ballindarra
Ballycommon/Kilclonfert
Ballycosney
Ballydaly - Wood of O
Bog Road
Broughal
Clonaderrig/Ballyduff
Corndarragh
Endrim
Erryarmstrong
Kilcrow
Kilnacarra
Leamore/Leabeg
Mile Tree
Park P.
Rashinagh/Kilnagarnagh
Shandra Lane
Townspark
Roscommon
Aughalustia
Ballagh/Ballybeg
Banada/Ballinafad
Baravelly/Carrigeen
Behy/Doogary
Cloonfoour Rooskey
Cootehall
Creglahan Cloonchambers
Culleen
Currasalae/Lisacul
Driney
Drumlosh Nure
Dysart
Emla/Keadue (Clooneyquinn)
Fairymount
Four Roads
Kilronan/Lisacul
Lowtown
Moore
Mountain Ballinlough
Onagh Taughmaconnell
Pallas Elphin
Rooskagh
Slatta
Termon Castlerea
Woodbrook
Woodmount Ballinasloe
Page
64
Group Water Scheme
Sligo
Ballure/Culleens
Ballygawley
Ballygilcash
Ballymeeney
Ballyogan
Barnasraghy
Carrowreagh Cooper
Castleconnor
Cletta Graniamore
Cloonagh
Cooga
Cuilmore
Derroon
Doo
Drumfad
Emlaghfad
Finnod/Castletown
Glackbaun
Gleann Kinnagrelly
Kellystown/Carrowcrin
Kilcat
Kilglass
Lisaneena
Ougham
Seafield
Westmeath
Ankerland/Fore
Ballygarveybeg/Kilnaugh
Ballynacargy/Empor
Clonageeragh/Sallymount
Clonbonny
Clongowney
Coolvuck
Cummerstown
Derrymore/Ballyhaw
Derryroe/Killard
Dysart/Lilliput
Garranafailagh
Gartlandstown
Hodgestown
Kilbixy
Knockdowney
Monganstown
Moydrum/Baylin
Moyvore
Raheenmore
Raheenquill
Redmondstown/Conranstown
Shureen/Ballymacmorris
Simonstown
Toarlisnamore
Tubberclair
The National Federation of Group Water Schemes