Mr. Alan Dunney:

The direct labour crews of the Office of Public Works built the works in Johnstown and Leixlip. Deputy Stanley asked about the timeframe from the commencement of our engagement with local residents until completion of the schemes. It probably took four years to complete the process, from the time representations were made to completion of the works. Having received representations, we carried out a preliminary design and cost-benefit analysis for a scheme, obtained approval from the Office of Public Works to proceed with planning and detailed design and then secured landowner agreements. It probably took two years to move on to the site and a further 18 to 24 months to carry out the construction programme. Construction is substantially complete, with the exception of reinstatement which can be done when the weather improves.

The Deputy pointed out that the Office of Public Works has not spent €7 million of its allocation and asked if any Kildare County Council schemes have been delayed. We have by and large obtained funding for all schemes that we have proved to be cost-beneficial. The main issue is to show a scheme is cost-beneficial.

Under the minor works programme, the cost to benefit ratio is 1:1.5, which means that if the benefit of a scheme is estimated to be €15,000, it must cost less than €10,000 to fix the problem. Under the capital works programme, the cost-benefit analysis is more complicated and involves discounting the scheme over its lifetime, which is defined as 50 years. Once this is shown to be positive, the scheme will generally be considered but it will fall into an overall national programme. In other words, it joins the queue, as it were.

The issue of hard surfaces on the motorways was raised. On the attenuation areas on the M7, while I was not involved in the design of the route, I assume the motorways have been designed in accordance with sustainable urban drainage system, SUDS, requirements. Under SUDS, the post-construction scenario should mimic the pre-construction scenario in terms of drainage. In other words, the pre-construction run-off should be mimicked by attenuating anything above the pre-construction, if members understand what I mean. That is the idea behind the attenuation basins.

Regarding the Barrow Drainage Board and Monasterevin, I am still on the Barrow Drainage Board. We did some work in this area last year and we must do some more work this year. We have to hit the main river from Dunrally Bridge towards Athy.

That is on this year's programme. As members probably know, we have a three year programme which we work through as best we can, given the windows allowed.

That leads to the next issue, namely, the National Parks and Wildlife Service and Inland Fisheries Ireland. Every three years the Barrow drainage board engages an environmental consultant to prepare a Natura impact statement, as required under the habitats directive. That identifies areas along the river where certain species live and the mitigation works we have to do to clean the river where the species in question are located, whether these be otter, lamprey, crayfish, or whatever. There are windows within the calendar during which we can do work. For example, if we cut trees along the River Barrow, we have to finish that by the end of February. If we want to put a bucket into the river, we can only do so between May and September, and with the agreement of Inland Fisheries Ireland. Some rivers are much more sensitive than others. For example, the Morrell river in north Kildare is very sensitive in the view of Inland Fisheries Ireland because it contains a great deal of salmon and trout.

I am not sure where the question on geocoding is coming from but the OPW published a set of maps under the CFRAM programme, perhaps 12 months ago, which offered an overview of where flooding might happen in the country. As part of the CFRAM programme there was public consultation, and results were sent out under the preliminary flood risk assessment. Since then, surveyors and modellers have been engaged to develop site-specific flood mapping for different areas. For example, in the Liffey catchment of the eastern CFRAM scheme a number of areas were set aside for further assessment, as AFAs. Each of those would have detailed surveying and modelling done, and I presume these would supersede the preliminary flood risk assessment, PFRA, maps. They are due for publication in 2013. Deputy Murphy asked about that.

I am not sure of the size of the OPW direct labour crews. In Johnstown and Leixlip there were probably 15 to 20 men, a foreman and a couple of engineers. They do excellent, well-finished work.

As to the process, probably the best thing we do is to engage early. We would never send in a cold application for funding but would always meet the regional engineering staff in Trim for site meetings where we go through what the scheme involves, how much it will cost, and what benefit we believe we will get from it. We have all that ground work done before we submit a formal application. When the planning process and procurement begin, there are statutory hurdles that must be jumped, and I am not sure what can be done about that.

I refer again to the habitats directive. Does the River Barrow example answer the question? There are certain windows when we can go in and do work. The Liffey is classed as a more sensitive river than the Barrow, which is engineered and covered by the Barrow Drainage Act. It is interesting that the Deputy mentioned the area downstream of Johnstown because we have been successful in getting that area accelerated under the CFRAM programme. The OPW is about to deliver flood mapping of that area and we will brief the local councillors on it next Tuesday, after which there will be public consultation, a fortnight from Thursday, I believe. In terms of cost-benefit analysis, it is a fairly broad area, not merely concentrated in Killymore and Turnings. Some three or four river areas are involved - Morrell, Painestown, Slane and Kill - which form the area downstream of the N7.