This is important for everyone to understand.

If, after reading

this, you still don't then please do not hesitate to ask
questions below.
Every country in the EU must submit a plan to describe how
they are going to meet EU standards for the provision of water
and waste services so as to not damage the environment. In
particular, they must account for the cost recovery in order to
maintain such standards.
Under Article 9.4, member states can opt out of domestic
charges if they so wish so long as the agreements within the
Water Framework Directive are met.
"9.4: Member States shall not be in breach of this Directive if
they decide in accordance with established practices not to
apply the provisions of paragraph 1, second sentence, and for
that purpose the relevant provisions of paragraph 2, for a
given water-use activity, where this does not compromise the
purposes and the achievement of the objectives of this
Directive. Member States shall report the reasons for not fully
applying paragraph 1, second sentence, in the river basin
management plans."
The first of these plans were sent to the EU in 2008. During
the initial phase of setting up this system of water quality
plans, the Fianna Fail government secured a provision in the
laws to exempt Ireland from introducing metered water
charges. This exemption became to be known as Article 9.4
derogation and we had it from 2003. The first plan to be
submitted occurred in 2008 when the then Minister for the
Environment, John Gormley, publicly renewed our 9.4
derogation as part of that plan. The EU accepted that water
provision would be provided by public services and paid for
through general taxation.
Here is John Gormley answering a question in the Dil
concerning whether water charges would be introduced in the
River Basin Plan for 2010...
"The Water Framework Directive was adopted on 23 October
2000. Article 9(1) of the Directive requires Member States to
take account of the principle of the recovery of the cost of
water services, including environmental and resource costs.
However, Article 9(4) of the same Directive stipulates that a
Member State will not be in breach of the Directive if it
decides, in accordance with established practices, not to
apply these provisions where it does not compromise the
purposes and the achievement of the Directive's objectives.
The Local Government (Financial Provisions Act) 1997
removed the authority of water services authorities to levy
charges for water services on domestic users. The Water
Pricing Policy, subsequently agreed by the Government in
November 1998, requires local authorities to recover the full
cost of providing water services from the users of these
services, with the exception of households using the services
for domestic purposes. There is no requirement, therefore, for
the Government to take steps to opt out of Article 9(1) given
that the established practice at the time of the adoption of the
Directive was not to levy charges on domestic users."
Gormley is telling you that the established practice, at the time
of adoption of the first river basin plan of 2010 was to ensure
the 9.4 exemption would be enforced and households are
exempt of water charges and that OUR government are the
only ones who can surrender our derogation. The EU cannot
force us to pay water charges. They never could so the talk
that the EU is forcing us to pay under threat of fines is not
accurate at all.
Not yet.
This plan was due to expire in 2015, seven years after the
adoption and was due to be replaced with the second-cycle
plan. Under Alan Kelly's watch, the plan was due to be
submitted December 2015 after a period of consultation and
planning.
According to Marian Harkin, MEP, the water plan defines the
method of established practice that must be adopted by the
state.
"So the question now is, what are established practices?
Former Commissioner Potocnik himself answered that
question in 2010 when he clarified ESTABLISHED PRACTICE
AS BEING AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION OF THE DIRECTIVE. For
EU and Ireland that was 2003 - not 2010, not 2012, not 2016,
its 2003 when there was no question of water charges being
applied. There should be no further argument on this point,
the Commission have clarified it already."
The European Commission also responded to a question as
put by Lynn Boylan concerning whether the 9.4 exemptiom
still applied...
"The European Commission has also confirmed in emails to
Lynn Boylan and Marian Harkin that if Ireland would like to
avail of Article 9.4 (the derogation) then it should submit that
request in its second river basin management plan with
justification. This second river basin management plan is now
not due to be submitted until 2017, with plenty of time for
Ireland to establish that derogation."
http://buncranatogether.com//the-european-commission-
irela
Here is Simon Coveney's Department of Environment update
on the Second-Cycle River Basin Plan timetable...
"Whilst progress has been made, the need for further
significant capital investment and operational improvements to
fully address the requirements of the Urban Waste Water
Treatment Directive (UWWTD) and progress towards the
objectives of the Water Framework Directive is recognised.
The setting up of Irish Water in 2014 represents an important
development in this regard. Prior to 2014, water services in
Ireland were delivered by 34 local authorities. "
They are telling you that while they set up Irish Water in 2014,
the FIRST River Basin Plan was still in effect but they fully
intend on charging for water once the second river basin plan
is adopted. Irish Water represents our surrendering of our
derogation and in order to reverse this, Irish Water must be
abolished. There's no ifs or buts about it.
Here is the official document outlining the plan and time table
for the Second Cycle River Basin Plan:
http://www.housing.gov.ie//draft_river_basin_management_pl

There's one massive problem for Simon though. The Second

River Basin Plan adoption has NOT OCCURRED YET.
According to the EPA and the DoE, the second cycle plans are
still in draft form and are going through consultation until a
final draft can be prepared after August 2017. The European
Commission has also indicated that Ireland has not yet
adopted the second-cycle plan on their website too. (See
Picture 2)
This means that until the second-cycle plan has been adopted
by Ireland, then the PREVIOUS plan must remain in effect and
also our 9.4 derogation.
Has anyone seen the 2015 second-cycle plans as supposedly
signed off by Alan Kelly? I haven't and I have looked. The truth
is that Coveney's Department have YET to file the plan and to
ensure Ireland adopts that plan. This clearly will not happen
until August at the earliest.
Are our politicians hoping that this little oversight would go
unnoticed until it was too late to do anything about it? Once
the second-cycle plan, with water charges, has been adopted
then there's no going back and it is OUR Irish Politicians who
want this to happen. Not the EU.
I get the feeling that all this hullabaloo over water charges and
the water commission is just a stalling tactic until this Second
Cycle River Basin Plan is adopted.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON THE RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR
IRELAND (2018-2021)
http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/public-
consultation/files/draft_river_basin_management_plan_1.pdf
There's one massive problem for Simon though. The Second
River Basin Plan adoption has NOT OCCURRED YET

DIRECTIVE 2000/60/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

AND OF THE COUNCIL of 23 October 2000 establishing a
framework for Community action in the field of water policy

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:5c835afb-
2ec6-4577-bdf8-
756d3d694eeb.0004.02/DOC_1&format=PDF
Thought you might be interested in reading the reply Dominic Hannigan
sent to me in 2014 about the water derigation. " This issue was
discussed by the Minister today in the Dil.

There is no derogation as the Minister makes clear:

Article 9 of the water framework directive of 2000 requires member

states to take account of the principle of recovery of the costs of water
services in accordance with the well known principle that the polluter
pays.
Article 9(4) of the directive states member states are not in breach of the
directive if they decide, in accordance with established practices, not to
apply the provisions of the recovery of costs for a given water use
activity where this does not compromise the purposes and achievement
of the objectives of the directive.
However, Ireland does not have any specific derogation from the
directive - I emphasise this point as I have read analysis and commentary
to the contrary.
The Government's policy on water charges is fully consistent with the
objectives of the water framework directive and reflects the commitment
entered into as part of the Programme of Financial Support for Ireland,
2010 to 2013, agreed between the previous Fianna Fil-led Government
and the European Union, the European Central Bank and the International
Monetary Fund.
The programme for Government commits to introducing a fair funding
model to deliver clean and reliable water and establishing a new State
owned utility to take responsibility for water infrastructure.
The new, more sustainable funding model being put in place through the
establishment of Irish Water will allow for the investment required to
ensure our water infrastructure can meet demographic and economic
needs and comply with the requirements of the water framework
directive in respect of the water environment.
In line with Government policy and the provisions of the Water Services
(No. 2) Act 2013, Irish Water can collect charges from its customers in
receipt of water services provided by it.
The package of measures announced in the House on 19 November
provides clarity and certainty and will ensure water charges are
affordable for customers. Legislation will be introduced in the House
later this week to underpin this package of measures.
MEP'S RESPONSE TO EU
COMMISSION AND IRISH
GOVERNMENT OVER 9.4 WFD
'IRISH EXEMPTION'
June 13, 2016

Sir, The European Commission has never made any official

statements asserting that Ireland abolishing direct water charges
would be in breach of the water framework directive.
The water framework directive, which was adopted in 2000, states
that all EU member states may derogate from the water pricing
obligations contained within the directive.
In a recent response to a written question submitted by Lynn
Boylan, the European Commission confirmed that this derogation
still exists. Yes, the response also stated that if established
practice was a direct water charge then the flexibility to use the
derogation would not apply, but here we come to the crux of the
matter established practice.
The European Commission is already on record as stating that it
considers established practices to be those practices which were
an established practice at the time of adoption of the directive.
This directive was adopted on October 23rd, 2000, and transposed
into Irish law in 2003, when it is beyond doubt that Ireland used
general taxation as its established practice.
Additionally, since direct water charges were introduced in Ireland
only in the last year and far more significantly since those
charges have been rejected by the people, charging directly for
water is not the established practice in Ireland.
Furthermore, in a 2014 landmark case on EU water recovery rules,
the European Court of Justice found in favour of Germany, after
the European Commission tried unsuccessfully to take that state to
court for, in its opinion, failing to fulfil its water framework directive
obligations. The judgment conclusively stated that it cannot be
inferred that the absence of pricing for water service activities will
necessarily jeopardise the attainment of the water framework
directive.
As recently as January 2016, more than one year after the
establishment of Irish Water, in a response to a written question
which asked if Ireland would be in breach of the water framework
directive if water charges were dropped, the European
Commission simply stated that the second river basin
management plans would be assessed against the requirements
of the directive. Anything else is simply conjecture.
The European Commission has also confirmed in emails to Lynn
Boylan and Marian Harkin that if Ireland would like to avail of
Article 9.4 (the derogation) then it should submit that request in its
second river basin management plan with justification. This second
river basin management plan is now not due to be submitted until
2017, with plenty of time for Ireland to establish that derogation.
It is beyond doubt then that if the Irish Government so wishes, it
can still use the derogation and justify its use in its river basin
management plans, as has been done and is still being done by so
many other European regions and countries.
In light of all the above, it is clear that certain commentators and
politicians have distorted the debate by misconstruing or
embellishing what the European Commission has put on record
regarding the derogation from water pricing in the water framework
directive. Worse, it is also clear that many of those same
politicians are deliberately twisting this clear, unequivocal situation
and using it as an excuse not to avail of the derogation, which
gives the Irish Government the final say in deciding on water
charges. Yours, etc,
LYNN BOYLAN MEP,
MARTINA
ANDERSON MEP,
MATT CARTHY MEP,
LIADH N RIADA MEP,
LUKE MING
FLANAGAN MEP,
NESSA CHILDERS MEP,
MARIAN HARKIN MEP.

Irish Water in new row

over 'secret' deal to fill
vacancies

Elizabeth Arnett head of communications at Irish Water

Irish Water's chief spokesperson has been caught in a spat
with RTE broadcaster Marian Finucane over a "secret"
union deal and PPS numbers.
The pair were locked in a row over whether an agreement
was struck between unions and management which meant
vacancies due to retirements at Irish Water were being
filled automatically.
Elizabeth Arnett said a consultative group, which included
unions and management, agreed that staff could be
replaced - if their numbers fell below a certain ceiling each
year.
However, she did not clarify whether this process was
automatic or not.
She said that as people left and retired, the company could
not leave frontline services undelivered, and the positions
could be filled by local authorities.
But she denied the report about the deal was true, because
staff numbers actually fell by 10pc last year despite the
arrangement.

From the archives: Debate on Water Services

Bill resumes in Dil
She said the staff ceiling agreed at the start of the year was
a ceiling, not a floor.
"The central point is staff are down 10pc so the story just
isn't true," she said.
But tensions escalated when Ms Finucane told Ms Arnett
she had "noticed her skill" when asked before why the
public had to give Irish Water their PPS numbers.
"You said, 'in order to get your allowance'," she remarked.
"But you never explained why a PPS number should be
necessary in order to get an allowance."
Ms Arnett said she would not go into "that territory" as the
issue of PPS numbers was now "off the table".
Ms Finucane responded: "It's a question of how the
information is delivered, is what I'm really saying."
"Anyway, I have to go," she added before moving to a
report on the Paris terrorist attacks.
Earlier, she accused Irish Water of hiding behind the
regulator in order to justify decisions to reduce costs.
"Politicians, and indeed your good self, love talking about
the regulator, and there were lots of rows and arguments
about the cost of electricity and all of that," she said.
"And it's a beautiful way to offload responsibilities and
say, 'It's not me, guvnor, it's the regulator'.
"That's a lovely way of saying nobody can be giving out to
you."
Ms Arnett responded by saying that the regulator imposed
cost-reduction targets on Irish Water, and that staffing
was a part of that.

Over 100 gardai, public order unit & 4 garda

dogs clash with protesters
Ballymun Says No
Meanwhile, senior union sources clarified the nature of
the deal on staffing last night.
They said the agreement that was struck meant replacing
staff should be mandatory.
But like many industrial relations agreements, it has no
legal force.
It means that unions turned a blind eye to the fact that
many of the vacancies at Irish Water have not been filled.
They have only made an issue of filling vacancies where
there was a clear need for frontline personnel, but not
when the company argued a role was no longer essential.
Most staff are direct employees of local authorities, who
must apply to the Department of Environment to fill posts.
Irish Water said the number of staff fell by 10pc last year,
from 4,319 to 3,920
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/water/irish-water-in-new-row-over-
secret-deal-to-fill-vacancies-30899733.html