asked the Minister for Finance whether the cost/benefit analysis in relation to the rivers listed for arterial drainage has yet been completed; and, if so, the result.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Drainage Cost/Benefit Study.
80.
It is the intention that when drainage proposals have been formulated in respect of the various catchments on the priority lists each will in turn be subjected to a cost/benefit study to decide if it is a worthwhile State capital investment. The report of such a study in respect of the Maigue catchment is now being prepared and a further one dealing with the Corrib/ Mask/Robe area has commenced.
This is something on which I have been very keen since first there was a mention of this cost/benefit analysis, with which I do not necessarily disagree. Would the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind, regardless of who does the cost/benefit analysis, that the uniform costing related to the acreages to be improved should not be the yardstick used throughout the country? In other words, an acre of land in one catchment area in a particular country can be immensely more valuable than in another, depending on the size of the holding. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate this. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to bear that particularly in mind when examining any of these cost/benefit analyses and not apply a uniform yardstick.
Mr. Kenny
The Deputy is perfectly correct because an acre of ground in Donegal or Mayo is worth more to the people there — and in the national interest as well — than it would be in, say, Wexford, Meath or Cork, and that will be borne in mind.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary not consider that the implementation of surveys in some areas of the western seaboard is unnecessary? They would be necessary in other parts of the country where there would be a difference in the value of land. But since land is so valuable in the areas to which the Parliamentary Secretary and Deputy Blaney referred, would the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that cost/benefit surveys are hardly necessary there?
Mr. Kenny
They were rendered necessary by the rumours or whispers about the arterial drainage schemes around 1969. It was questioned whether or not farmers were making full use of their land. This cost/benefit survey was initiated in 1969. Since then, with the additional value of land and its increased productivity, the farmers cannot lose by having this cost/benefit survey implemented. It will be understood by everybody as the years go by that we must get more money for arterial drainage. In other words, it is an asset to me in my argument for more funds that the cost/ benefit survey will prove that arterial drainage is one of the best incentives for production in the national interest.
How are these reports progressing? How many are under way? How many has the Parliamentary Secretary received so far and how many have not yet been started?
Mr. Kenny
The first cost/benefit survey was carried out on the Maigue. The Maigue forms portion of the Golden Vale and is in a category of its own. The Maigue survey took two years and two months to finalise. The report has not yet been published but a draft report will be ready within two weeks. The second cost/benefit survey — benefiting from the information gleaned from the first — will take about six months only. That is in progress already in the Corrib/Mask/Robe area. The standards are completely different because the type of land, farmer and livelihood is very different from that in the Maigue catchment area. But the two will be in juxtaposition and will benefit further cost/benefit surveys in other places. Future cost/benefit surveys will take much less time to implement and be published than in the case of the first two.