I thank the Deputy for raising this important issue. As he will understand, the supply of public water and the provision of water services are matters for Uisce Éireann. Uisce Éireann has statutory responsibility for all aspects of water services planning, delivery and operation at national, regional and local level. The scope, prioritisation and progression of individual projects are matters for Uisce Éireann and approved through its own board and internal governance structures. Under section 7 of the Water Services (No. 2) Act, the Minister has no function regarding Uisce Éireann's specific operations at Dargle Wood. However, the Minister has made inquiries and my understanding from the information provided is that an unplanned outage occurred on Sunday, 20 April. A number of customers were impacted following that burst water main, which resulted in low pressure and water interruptions in the area. Local Uisce Éireann service crews should be immediately dispatched when an unplanned outage occurs to do repair work as soon as possible. This did not happen, and Uisce Éireann acknowledges that it did not meet the service expectations as regards that localised burst. A leak detection crew was mobilised to find the burst on the Tuesday morning, 22 April, with the repair completed by the Tuesday evening. Following the repair, Uisce Éireann was made aware that some customers experienced airlocks in their households and deployed a plumber to further help those householders and water was returned to all properties. Uisce Éireann would like to thank elected representatives for highlighting the issue to its teams and is grateful for the support of South Dublin County Council crews in attending the site and carrying out the repairs. Uisce Éireann is reviewing the burst history in the Knocklyon area and will develop appropriate works programmes. Uisce Éireann understands how disruptive unplanned outages are and it has informed the Minister that it regrets the inconvenience caused to customers and residents. A full review is ongoing relating to the delay in dispatching crews to the site to ensure that this does not happen again.

Sentiment score: 0.02

Our water and wastewater infrastructure requires substantial and sustained investment over a number of investment cycles to bring the systems up to the standards required of a modern service that provides for population growth and to build resilience in the face of climate change. Uisce Éireann has ramped up capital delivery for water services and infrastructure and we as an Oireachtas and a Government provided €300 million in 2014. That went up to €1.3 billion in 2024. That has resulted in record investment over the last five years. The investments continued in this budget, with capital funding for Uisce Éireann of over €2.2 billion, and further funding for water infrastructure will be considered as part of the review of the national development plan. Uisce Éireann has a strong - I do not like the word "customer" in relation to State bodies - resident service focus through its water plan and customer charter, which outlines the standard of service residents should expect to receive. It is open to any member of the public to lodge a formal complaint with Uisce Éireann if they are not happy with the service provided. Details on how to do so are on its website. Any issues which cannot be resolved by Uisce Éireann to the satisfaction of the resident can be referred under the formal complaints process of the CRU. The details of this are on the CRU website. Uisce Éireann has, as the Deputy knows, a dedicated team to deal with representations and queries from public representatives, and he will have the contact details for them. We all have these issues with Uisce Éireann in every constituency. Sometimes there is fantastic work done; sometimes there just is not. We have to praise the good when it happens and try to rectify the bad when that happens too. I thank Uisce Éireann for its work and thank the Deputy for highlighting this because it is important in a democracy to remember that Uisce Éireann is a public entity and is accountable to the Government and the Oireachtas through that.

Sentiment score: 0.15

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta os rud é gur chuir sé an t-ábhar tábhachtach seo os comhair na Dála. Tá mise ag tógaint an ábhair seo thar ceann an Aire Iompair. I am aware of the Department’s recent report, The Economic Cost of Congestion in the Regional Cities 2022-2040, and the results pertaining to Galway. The report builds on an earlier study about Dublin published in 2023, which the Deputy mentioned. The same methodology was applied to Cork, Waterford and Galway, providing consistent and monetised examples of the costs of congestion across these cities. The cost of congestion is calculated on the basis of lost productive time due to increased travel times. In Galway, the cost of congestion is projected to rise to €106.9 million by 2040. On a per capita basis, this equates to €806 - second only to Dublin, which is projected at €1,047 per capita in 2040. These figures show the significant economic impact of congestion on residents and businesses in Galway. Those of us who have the privilege to visit Galway are only too well aware of the congestion, so we can empathise and sympathise. The report indicates that Galway’s congestion costs will be notably higher than those in other regional cities. This reflects the growing demand on the transport network in the city as it assumes that Galway’s population and economy will continue to grow significantly over coming years. The pressure on transport infrastructure will then increase unless we take proactive measures. While congestion is an inevitable consequence of economic and population growth, the results show how these costs will be distributed across different groups. The majority of costs are experienced by personal vehicles. However, the proportion attributed to goods vehicles is expected to increase by 2040. Galway shows a different pattern in the timing of congestion. Unlike other cities, which experience peak delays in the morning and evening, Galway’s congestion costs are distributed relatively evenly throughout the day. This is likely due to the employment patterns and travel behaviours in Galway, including tourists. The report advises that infrastructure provision will mitigate congestion costs, but the mitigation could be temporary. In transport planning, it is well understood that increased supply will be met with increased demand, known as induced demand. The modelling incorporates projects outlined in the Galway transport strategy published in 2016. The Deputy mentioned some of them. The report further concludes that the planned infrastructure developments will reduce the cost of congestion compared to a scenario where they are not delivered, that is, the congestion projections would be far worse without the planned infrastructure investments. Notably, there is a slight decrease of approximately €500,000 in congestion costs in Galway between 2030 and 2040. This would indicate that the infrastructure delivered during this period will successfully reduce the rate of growth in congestion levels. The report makes clear that investment in public transport, promoting compact and mixed-purpose urban development and encouraging a shift toward sustainable modes of travel should be continued. To address congestion more broadly, support should be directed not only towards infrastructure alone but also toward behavioural changes through public awareness campaigns and incentives that make sustainable transport more attractive and accessible.

Sentiment score: 0.15

I thank the Deputy for bringing the focus to Galway and congestion and for being a strong voice for the city, for the wider constituency of Galway West and for Connemara. It is good he has raised the report in the Dáil because it outlines what congestion costs every man, woman and child in Galway. Galway citizens are likely to experience a much higher cost per capita than citizens of other regional cities. The ring road has been delayed by court proceedings and planning issues and the Galway transport strategy has not been updated since 2016 because of the lack of clarity here. The modelling in this report is based on the transport strategy and includes the ring road. It is not possible to tease out the specific savings the ring road would be responsible for but it is one of the more significant projects included in the model. That is obvious but I am glad the Government and the Government report are saying that because that is the type of advocacy the Deputy has been making to all of us and all his colleagues. It can be reasonably asserted that the ring road would contribute to the lower congestion cost in the period after it is delivered. I agree that is important. There is a wide range of measures relating to public transport that will reduce the cost financially for the Deputy's constituents and make Galway as good a place as we all know it can be. It is a beautiful and important city.

Sentiment score: 0.32

I thank the Deputy for raising the issue and appreciate his concerns regarding this process. The water framework directive establishes the general objective that water bodies be restored to at least good ecological status by 2027. It also makes provision that a more realistic objective for water bodies that have been heavily modified may be set. This applies where restoration would not be technically feasible or would be disproportionately costly, among other considerations. Under the water framework directive, the Department conducted an eight-week consultation on designating heavily modified water bodies, which closed on 23 May 2025. This followed an initial consultation on characterising heavily modified water bodies completed by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, in 2022. The EPA determined, on the basis of expert judgment underpinned by new assessment tools, that these water bodies would fail to achieve the target of good ecological status due to changes in their physical condition. This resulted in a list of 466 water bodies requiring further assessment by the Department to determine their eligibility for designation as heavily modified. These water bodies have undergone significant physical modifications to support various societal benefits, for example, concrete flood protection schemes. As a result, they are no longer in a natural state and cannot achieve the same environmental targets as their natural counterparts. These water bodies have been modified to supply drinking water, provide flood protection, protect towns and villages and create national ports. It also includes those modified as a result of land drainage, which is carried out under the Arterial Drainage Act 1945. Arterial drainage provides flood protection to thousands of residential and commercial properties, in addition to protecting farmlands. The water action plan 2024 sets out a series of actions to tackle water quality in Ireland. All member states are required to produce such plans in six-year cycles. Action 3.11 of the plan commits to a review of arterial drainage requirements and the underpinning Arterial Drainage Act to inform future land use policy decisions. Until that is complete and irrespective of designation as heavily modified, the OPW has a statutory duty under the Arterial Drainage Act to maintain arterial drainage schemes. Designation of water bodies as heavily modified acknowledges that there has been a modification for the purposes of a beneficial specified use and that different, more appropriate environmental standards need to be applied. These water bodies will have an alternative target of good ecological potential instead of good ecological status. Official EU guidance on this process outlines that this is not an exemption but is a specific category of water body with its own classification scheme and objective. It is important to note that good ecological potential reflects the best environmental target that the water body is capable of achieving while the modifications to support the specified use are still in place. In itself, the designation does not have an ecological effect but sets a realistic yet stringent standard.

Sentiment score: 0.24

The Deputy says it is in breach of the citizens' assembly, but it is in compliance with EU law and guidance. This is not an exemption. It is defined in the EU guidance as an alternative target that is designed to get the best possible environmental outcome while continuing to provide societal benefits. This is a cyclical process. Water bodies currently proposed for designation are unable to meet the good ecological status objective at this time. As further information arises, alternative solutions could become available. Once a viable alternative is implemented that can allow these water bodies to achieve their natural target, they will not be designated as heavily modified in subsequent cycles. Where no alternative solution can be found, mitigation measures will be applied to those designated water bodies to ensure they achieve the best environmental standard possible. Designation as heavily modified is a dynamic process that allows us to continue to with specified uses, such as drinking water and flood protection, while still achieving the best environmental standards possible. It allows us to redesignate and de-designate water bodies in the future if better solutions arise. It does not constitute a lowering of ecological targets.

Sentiment score: 0.38