This picture of Colwich lock on the T&M, sums up our experience this year.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

 

 

[IanD]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

 

 

 

So you keep claiming. Why not provide some evidence?

 

-- What's the CART "chief-to-indian" ratio compared to other comparable (similar-sized, similar-function) organisations with similar responsibilities?

 

IIRC you previously made a similar claim about CART wasting vast sums by having far too many overpaid executives, and weren't happy when I dug out data which compared them to other charities which showed they didn't.

 

Over to you... 😉 

[Arthur Marshall]

21 minutes ago, IanD said:

IIRC you previously made a similar claim about CART wasting vast sums by having far too many overpaid executives, and weren't happy when I dug out data which compared them to other charities which showed they didn't

But that's why most people have given up contributions to big charities- it all goes to pay the executives and the managers and a small proportion goes to the good deeds. As I said above, most big charities now exist to fund themselves and jollies for the boss. Bit like political parties. They aren't there to produce results, they're there to stay in business.

[IanD]

21 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

But that's why most people have given up contributions to big charities- it all goes to pay the executives and the managers and a small proportion goes to the good deeds. As I said above, most big charities now exist to fund themselves and jollies for the boss. Bit like political parties. They aren't there to produce results, they're there to stay in business.

 

That's largely an urban myth, except for a few cherry-picked bad examples who queer the pitch for everyone else -- and often get prosecuted as a result. On average about 60%-70% of charity income goes directly to the "good deeds", which is obviously not "a small proportion".

 

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/how-much-charities-spend-good-causes

https://www.goodbox.com/2019/06/how-much-money-goes-to-charity-when-you-donate/

 

"However, these variances in spending are not necessarily evidence of some underhand money management behind the scenes. As a general rule of thumb, the larger the business, the more administrative support and resources they’ll need – the same goes for charities. The biggest and more complex charities will need to allocate more of their income towards the general running of their organisations and full-time employees than smaller charities that are more reliant on an active volunteer base."

 

But don't let the facts get in the way of your prejudices... 😉 

 

IIRC the total wage bill for all the CART "overpaid executives" was a few percent of CART total income, similar to other responsibly-managed charities and organisations.

 

Edited September 16 by IanD

[Chris John]

48 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

So you keep claiming. Why not provide some evidence?

 

-- What's the CART "chief-to-indian" ratio compared to other comparable (similar-sized, similar-function) organisations with similar responsibilities?

 

IIRC you previously made a similar claim about CART wasting vast sums by having far too many overpaid executives, and weren't happy when I dug out data which compared them to other charities which showed they didn't.

 

Over to you... 😉 

I’d stop wasting your time….some could make a full time career out of CRT bashing. 

[IanD]

8 minutes ago, Chris John said:

I’d stop wasting your time….some could make a full time career out of CRT bashing. 

Especially those who have left the canals and keep trying to convince everyone that they made the right decision... 😉 

[Arthur Marshall]

26 minutes ago, IanD said:

However, these variances in spending are not necessarily evidence of some underhand money management behind the scenes. As a general rule of thumb, the larger the business, the more administrative support and resources they’ll need – the same goes for charities. The biggest and more complex charities will need to allocate more of their income towards the general running of their organisations and full-time employees than smaller charities that are more reliant on an active volunteer base."

 

But don't let the facts get in the way of your prejudices... 😉 

Well, yes, just as I said. The purpose of the administrators of a small charity is to get to be a big charity, so it can spend more of your money on administration, and running the organisation, proportionally, than it did when it was just a little one,  doing some good. And everyone gets paid more, hurrah, because they've got more people to manage.

[Mike Todd]

45 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

That's largely an urban myth, except for a few cherry-picked bad examples who queer the pitch for everyone else -- and often get prosecuted as a result. On average about 60%-70% of charity income goes directly to the "good deeds", which is obviously not "a small proportion".

 

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/how-much-charities-spend-good-causes

https://www.goodbox.com/2019/06/how-much-money-goes-to-charity-when-you-donate/

 

"However, these variances in spending are not necessarily evidence of some underhand money management behind the scenes. As a general rule of thumb, the larger the business, the more administrative support and resources they’ll need – the same goes for charities. The biggest and more complex charities will need to allocate more of their income towards the general running of their organisations and full-time employees than smaller charities that are more reliant on an active volunteer base."

 

But don't let the facts get in the way of your prejudices... 😉 

 

IIRC the total wage bill for all the CART "overpaid executives" was a few percent of CART total income, similar to other responsibly-managed charities and organisations.

 

It all goes to 'good deeds' but it depends on what you think us needed to organise those deeds effectively and/or efficiently.

[IanD]

28 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Well, yes, just as I said. The purpose of the administrators of a small charity is to get to be a big charity, so it can spend more of your money on administration, and running the organisation, proportionally, than it did when it was just a little one,  doing some good. And everyone gets paid more, hurrah, because they've got more people to manage.

I really don't get your point here, this is just the reality of big charities vs. small ones, there's little or nothing they can do about it for exactly the reasons explained -- a small charity heavily reliant on volunteers costs less to run than a big one which needs more paid staff, especially one like CART who have to do a lot of real engineering work on infrastructure.

 

And all that does reduce the "good cause" spending from 70% or so for small charities to 60% or so for big ones like CART.

 

Which is still a clear majority of their income, not "a small proportion" as you claimed.

Edited September 16 by IanD

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

I really don't get your point here, this is just the reality of big charities vs. small ones, there's little or nothing they can do about it for exactly the reasons explained -- a small charity heavily reliant on volunteers costs less to run than a big one which needs more paid staff, especially one like CART who have to do a lot of real engineering work on infrastructure.

 

And all that does reduce the "good cause" spending from 70% or so for small charities to 60% or so for big ones like CART.

 

Which is still a clear majority of their income, not "a small proportion" as you claimed.

CRT is a different kind of charity from one of the "doing good" ones, really, so one's opinion of how the other sort operate isn't really relevant.

CRT is a business with technically charitable ends  as it's running something for the public good. I think the argument is that too much thought is going into the running the business, and not enough into the outcomes of the decisions made. They are of course constrained by lack of money - the debate is really as to how what there is, is allocated; whether too much importance is being given to the bureaucracy as opposed to the wet bit. Bureaucrats tend to see themselves as the critical components, not locks, bridges or reservoirs.

Opinions differ, the only thing we actually know is that depreciation is progressing quicker than maintenance can keep up. Which is not that surprising in such an old system, but it is a little sad.

[cuthound]

4 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

Seen more boats today on the Coventry canal than I have seen anywhere for a long time,  

 

The Coventry has been busier this year than in any of the 10 years I have lived by it. 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

But that's why most people have given up contributions to big charities- it all goes to pay the executives and the managers and a small proportion goes to the good deeds. As I said above, most big charities now exist to fund themselves and jollies for the boss. Bit like political parties. They aren't there to produce results, they're there to stay in business.

 

Most charities these day offer lotteries to attract contributions.

 

CRT offer a different kind of lottery, one where it is a gamble on your chosen route remaining open before you complete your trip...

 

Edited September 16 by cuthound
To add spaces between merged posts

[IanD]

3 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

CRT is a different kind of charity from one of the "doing good" ones, really, so one's opinion of how the other sort operate isn't really relevant.

CRT is a business with technically charitable ends  as it's running something for the public good. I think the argument is that too much thought is going into the running the business, and not enough into the outcomes of the decisions made. They are of course constrained by lack of money - the debate is really as to how what there is, is allocated; whether too much importance is being given to the bureaucracy as opposed to the wet bit. Bureaucrats tend to see themselves as the critical components, not locks, bridges or reservoirs.

Opinions differ, the only thing we actually know is that depreciation is progressing quicker than maintenance can keep up. Which is not that surprising in such an old system, but it is a little sad.

Your argument seems to be that CART are spending too much on bureaucracy and management and not enough on actual work, but -- like your claim about charities in general -- there doesn't seem to any evidence to back this up, just oft-repeated negative opinions about CART.

 

The last time people doing this claimed that CART had far too many highly-paid executives compared to other charities, the actual figures showed this wasn't true. Same for your claim about bigger charities spending much more on management than good causes.

 

Even if lots of people on CWDF hold such opinions, this still doesn't make them true... 😉

 

At least I think we agree that the canal system is gradually getting worse as maintenance fails to keep up, and that more income -- from DEFRA, boaters or both -- is the only way to halt this, apart from canal closures which are both very difficult and expensive to make happen... 😞

[johnmck]

8 minutes ago, IanD said:

Your argument seems to be that CART are spending too much on bureaucracy and management and not enough on actual work, but -- like your claim about charities in general -- there doesn't seem to any evidence to back this up, just oft-repeated negative opinions about CART.

 

The last time people doing this claimed that CART had far too many highly-paid executives compared to other charities, the actual figures showed this wasn't true. Same for your claim about bigger charities spending much more on management than good causes.

 

Even if lots of people on CWDF hold such opinions, this still doesn't make them true... 😉

 

At least I think we agree that the canal system is gradually getting worse as maintenance fails to keep up, and that more income -- from DEFRA, boaters or both -- is the only way to halt this, apart from canal closures which are both very difficult and expensive to make happen... 😞

Sometimes our views are at variance  I will admit. But all of the above, I totally agree with.

The solution to maintaining an effectively antique transport system, protected by heritage listing's, escapes me without a substantial funding injection. But from where?

[Arthur Marshall]

9 hours ago, IanD said:

At least I think we agree that the canal system is gradually getting worse as maintenance fails to keep up, and that more income -- from DEFRA, boaters or both -- is the only way to halt this, apart from canal closures which are both very difficult and expensive to make happen... 😞

We do.

I think the navigation closures will happen by default, sadly. Income from boaters simply can't fill the gap, and as we are a minority interest as far as CRT is concerned, why should it? You can't blame CRT, it was lumbered with being what it is. As in most of the infrastructure in a declining economy, even maintaining the status quo is impossible without a bit of radical thinking, which is unlikely in a largely conservatively (small c) minded country.

[Paul C]

9 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

We do.

I think the navigation closures will happen by default, sadly. Income from boaters simply can't fill the gap, and as we are a minority interest as far as CRT is concerned, why should it? You can't blame CRT, it was lumbered with being what it is. As in most of the infrastructure in a declining economy, even maintaining the status quo is impossible without a bit of radical thinking, which is unlikely in a largely conservatively (small c) minded country.

 

This.

 

9 hours ago, IanD said:

....................... apart from canal closures which are both very difficult and expensive to make happen... 😞

 

I disagree that canal closures are difficult and expensive. I think we'll see a "managed decline" of many canals, with some through routes becoming de-facto unusable (Rochdale?) leading to a spiral of lack of boats/movements and lack of money spent. CRT don't actually need to bother with the official/legal "closure" route. 

 

At the moment they're fairly evenly spreading the lack of maintenance (stoppages on more important cruiseways, timely fixes (after a stoppage obvs) on less important ones). It is only a matter of time before we see a prioritisation of certain routes. We could call the remainder................err, remainder waterways.

 

Edited September 17 by Paul C

[Grassman]

Some valid points made about lack of preventative maintenance and CRT wasting money etc, but with regards to the point I made about the Toddbrook Reservoir, whilst regular monitoring and maintenance would have helped to prevent the near disaster, the fundamental issue was the poor design and substandard materials used in it's modification during the time when it was government owned and run.

 

Therefore even though the government had no legal obligation to help with it's re-construction, I think they should have pitched in with some financial help. Perhaps I'm being naive, but I think they should have done.

[MtB]

16 hours ago, IanD said:

Especially those who have left the canals and keep trying to convince everyone that they made the right decision... 😉 

 

 

I'd suggest they are mainly trying to convince themselves it was the right decision, rather than everyone else.

 

 

[IanD]

3 hours ago, Paul C said:

 

This.

 

I disagree that canal closures are difficult and expensive. I think we'll see a "managed decline" of many canals, with some through routes becoming de-facto unusable (Rochdale?) leading to a spiral of lack of boats/movements and lack of money spent. CRT don't actually need to bother with the official/legal "closure" route. 

 

At the moment they're fairly evenly spreading the lack of maintenance (stoppages on more important cruiseways, timely fixes (after a stoppage obvs) on less important ones). It is only a matter of time before we see a prioritisation of certain routes. We could call the remainder................err, remainder waterways.

 

 

There have been many discussions about this on CWDF, which came to the difficult/expensive conclusion.

 

To close cruising waterways -- which could save significant sums -- needs an Act of Parliament, and the chances of this happening are close to zero given other more pressing government business. If they're not closed, CART have an enforceable legal obligation to keep them open and fit for navigation, so they can't just deliberately run them down. These account for most of the canal system, about 80% IIRC.

 

Closing some of the expensive-to-maintain little-used "remainder" canals which were reopened at the end of the last century like the Rochdale and HNC would mean CART paying tens of millions of pounds back to the bodies which funded their restoration, and the cost of this would far exceed the savings from closing them. That's not speculation, it's information straight from the horse's mouth -- a poster on here who was actively involved on the contract negotiations. This would also kick in if they were "de-facto" closed by running them down, since the grants were made on the condition that the canals are kept open and fit for navigation for many years from the date of reopening (50? 60?).

 

There are a few remainder canals which are little-used and could probably be run down and/or closed without too much protest (e.g. bits of the BCN), but these only form a tiny part of the network and are not usually the expensive-to-maintain ones with lots of locks, so the money saving would be pretty small.

 

As it stands CART do prioritise the most popular canals for maintenance, both planned and emergency, because a closure stoppage on a canal like the Llangollen or T&M (~6000 boat movements per year?) has a far bigger impact on boaters and hire companies than on one like the HNC (~300 boat movements per year?). But there doesn't seem to be any realistic way they can save a significant amount of money by closing canals, so without a change to their financing (bigger DEFRA grant, higher license fees) the system will continue to slowly deteriorate and the number of unplanned stoppages will continue to rise... 😞 

 

This is something that Fund Britain's Waterways are trying to stop by pushing for more government support, but the other side of the coin (higher license fees) is being strongly resisted by many boaters -- who have been paying too little for many years, but have got used to this, hence the rise in the number of CMers in recent years... 😞 

 

Boaters hoping/claiming that closures can/will avoid this increase are doing the same as those who thing that sacking Richard Parry or sacking "fat cat mangers" or getting rid of blue signs or bringing back a direct workforce will fix CART's problems -- they won't, but it stops people being forced to admit what the real problem is, which is (at least partly) partly that they are paying too little for their boating.

Edited September 17 by IanD
LLangollen changed to "stoppage"

[Alan de Enfield]

19 minutes ago, IanD said:

As it stands CART do prioritise the most popular canals for maintenance, both planned and emergency, because a closure on a canal like the Llangollen

 

They cannot legally close the Llangollen as they are requied to maintain its flow ( I guess they could make all locks into weirs) as it is the drinking water supply for much of Cheshire.

[Paul C]

Or.....

 

(As in, if they don't uphold their legal obligation to maintain its navigability, what enforcement action and by whom, is taken against CRT?)

[IanD]

14 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

They cannot legally close the Llangollen as they are requied to maintain its flow ( I guess they could make all locks into weirs) as it is the drinking water supply for much of Cheshire.

I meant a stoppage, not a closure -- now corrected.

 

14 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Or.....

 

(As in, if they don't uphold their legal obligation to maintain its navigability, what enforcement action and by whom, is taken against CRT?)

 

Very good question. I would think that CART would be sued -- possibly by a joint case from canal users, maybe FBW backed by all their supporters? -- under breach of contract, and told by the courts that they have to meet their legal obligations. If they don't -- because they can't financially -- then eventually the government will have to carry the can if CART go bust or fail to meet their obligations. Which would then put the government back on the hook for everything once again, so I expect they'd realise it was much cheaper to bump up the DEFRA grant -- and tell CART to raise license fees by a good chunk... 😞 

 

Right now the government is presumably aware of CART's problems, they've been told often enough, but they still see it as Somebody Else's Problem. A lawsuit would bring the chickens home to roost... 😉 

Edited September 17 by IanD

[Stroudwater1]

18 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

There have been many discussions about this on CWDF, which came to the difficult/expensive conclusion.

 

To close cruising waterways -- which could save significant sums -- needs an Act of Parliament, and the chances of this happening are close to zero given other more pressing government business. If they're not closed, CART have an enforceable legal obligation to keep them open and fit for navigation, so they can't just deliberately run them down. These account for most of the canal system, about 80% IIRC.

 

Closing some of the expensive-to-maintain little-used "remainder" canals which were reopened at the end of the last century like the Rochdale and HNC would mean CART paying tens of millions of pounds back to the bodies which funded their restoration, and the cost of this would far exceed the savings from closing them. That's not speculation, it's information straight from the horse's mouth -- a poster on here who was actively involved on the contract negotiations. This would also kick in if they were "de-facto" closed by running them down, since the grants were made on the condition that the canals are kept open and fit for navigation for many years from the date of reopening (50? 60?).

 

There are a few remainder canals which are little-used and could probably be run down and/or closed without too much protest (e.g. bits of the BCN), but these only form a tiny part of the network and are not usually the expensive-to-maintain ones with lots of locks, so the money saving would be pretty small.

 

As it stands CART do prioritise the most popular canals for maintenance, both planned and emergency, because a closure on a canal like the Llangollen or T&M (~6000 boat movements per year?) has a far bigger impact on boaters and hire companies than on one like the HNC (~300 boat movements per year?). But there doesn't seem to be any realistic way they can save a significant amount of money by closing canals, so without a change to their financing (bigger DEFRA grant, higher license fees) the system will continue to slowly deteriorate and the number of unplanned stoppages will continue to rise... 😞 

 

This is something that Fund Britain's Waterways are trying to stop by pushing for more government support, but the other side of the coin (higher license fees) is being strongly resisted by many boaters -- who have been paying too little for many years, but have got used to this, hence the rise in the number of CMers in recent years... 😞 

 

Boaters hoping/claiming that closures can/will avoid this increase are doing the same as those who thing that sacking Richard Parry or sacking "fat cat mangers" or getting rid of blue signs or bringing back a direct workforce will fix CART's problems -- they won't, but it stops people being forced to admit what the real problem is, which is (at least partly) partly that they are paying too little for their boating.

 

 

Thank goodness you have moved away from suggesting the HNC or Rochdale close, but sad that you are now on about the BCN Ian. If ANY canal was closed, if there was little protest then it would be  sad day. Please can you suggest what bit of remainder BCN you suggest closing anyway, especially as the Lichfield and Hatherton group are edging on to link up less used parts?

 

You need to get more involved in the restoration groups Ian, its daft to be talking about closures when the restoration groups are so active, the thing need fight not showing our soft belly off to CRT, however large it may be.

 

Better still please enter the next BCN challenge to appreciate what you want to close. you wont be disappointed!

 

A canal doesn't just close or permanently "stop" , it gets filled in, by detritus development and mud. Merely cruising itself autodredges channels to an extent, and locks deteriorate whether used or not. Often things are better used than laid up. 

 

Incidentally I still don't believe you are able to justify the existence of some of the management team at CRT. I dont think anyone is saying some are vital, and many do great work  but it really doesn't seem necessary to have some of these managers titles as outlined by Alan.  We need more people on the ground, often cheaper and usually likely to be better value. A comparison with other charities is not a good way of demonstrating anything as CRT is so different from the usual charities. 

 

 

 

 

 

[IanD]

20 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:

 

 

Thank goodness you have moved away from suggesting the HNC or Rochdale close, but sad that you are now on about the BCN Ian. If ANY canal was closed, if there was little protest then it would be  sad day. Please can you suggest what bit of remainder BCN you suggest closing anyway, especially as the Lichfield and Hatherton group are edging on to link up less used parts?

 

You need to get more involved in the restoration groups Ian, its daft to be talking about closures when the restoration groups are so active, the thing need fight not showing our soft belly off to CRT, however large it may be.

 

Better still please enter the next BCN challenge to appreciate what you want to close. you wont be disappointed!

 

A canal doesn't just close or permanently "stop" , it gets filled in, by detritus development and mud. Merely cruising itself autodredges channels to an extent, and locks deteriorate whether used or not. Often things are better used than laid up. 

 

Incidentally I still don't believe you are able to justify the existence of some of the management team at CRT. I dont think anyone is saying some are vital, and many do great work  but it really doesn't seem necessary to have some of these managers titles as outlined by Alan.  We need more people on the ground, often cheaper and usually likely to be better value. A comparison with other charities is not a good way of demonstrating anything as CRT is so different from the usual charities. 

 

 

Honestly speaking I think some of the restoration groups are misguided -- getting a canal reopened is brilliant, but where does the money come from to maintain it afterwards? Without this they will just add to CART's long-term costs, especially if the restoration suffered from penny-pinching like happened with the HNC and Rochdale -- both of which I love (and have *never* suggested should close!), but not many other boaters seem to going by numbers using them, and they're now becoming increasingly expensive to maintain and stoppage-ridden... 😞 

 

The BCN wasn't my suggestion, but it was one of the few realistic options for (partial) closure last time we had this discussion. I love the BCN (though not many people use much of it...), I haven't done as much of it yet as I'd like to but plan to change this in future -- maybe even including the BCN challenge if I can persuade a suitable crew 🙂

 

I wasn't saying that every single CART manager was justified, I expect they have reasons for having them all but maybe some judicious pruning is needed. However wholesale fat-cat/manager accusations from people like Alan don't seem justified -- yes CART is different from other charities, they have a lot more involvement with a huge amount of historic infrastructure which needs maintenance, if anything I'd expect them to need proportionally more managers than most other charities since a large part of the physical work is now subcontracted instead of swelling employee numbers. In spite of that the number of "highly-paid managers" is similar to other similar-sized charities, which suggests they're not wasting vast amounts of money on "fat cats", however stupid some of the job titles seem.

 

Where do you think the "more people on the ground, often cheaper" are going to come from? If you mean volunteers, they can't realistically do any maintenance/rebuilding which carries risks given insurance/liability today, so they can only do "menial" stuff like undergrowth clearing or painting -- which of course is valuable and needs doing, but it doesn't replace lock gates or paddles. If you mean rebuilding a direct labour force instead of subcontracting, this doesn't make sense -- companies don't use subcontracting because they're Tories who believe the private sector is superior, they do it because it's cheaper and easier to manage (clue -- needs fewer managers...).

Edited September 17 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

25 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:

You need to get more involved in the restoration groups Ian, its daft to be talking about closures when the restoration groups are so active, the thing need fight not showing our soft belly off to CRT, however large it may be.

 

It'll be very unpopular but I'd suggest that we actually need less restoration of canals.

 

C&RT cannot maintain the ones they already have so 'having' to take on 'additional liabilities' seems extremely foolhardy.

 

Restorations, by their very nature, are (shall we say) being completed "on a budget" and as has been proven for many of the restoration over the last 20 years or so have proven to be expensive to keep in use.

 

Fortunately, in law, C&RT are not required to take on any further liabilities of restored remainder canals, or, if they do, they can insist that guaranteed continual funding for "X" years is in place.

 

So what happens to the canal you restore when C&RT say, "you cannot connect it to the network, and, we will not take into our portfolio" ?

 

 

Maybe the restorers could use their fundraising skills, organisational and building skills do  something constructive and assist C&RT on some of the failing 'main network' ?

Edited September 17 by Alan de Enfield
\spooling errurs

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

It'll be very unpopular but I'd suggest that we actually need less restoration of canals.

 

C&RT cannot maintain the ones they already have so 'having' to take on 'additional liabilities' seems extremely foolhardy.

 

Restorations, by their very nature, are (shall we say) being completed "on a budget" and as has been proven for many of the restoration over the last 20 years or so have proven to be expensive to keep in use.

 

Fortunately, in law, C&RT are not required to take on any further liabilities of restored remainder canals, or, if they do, they can insist that guaranteed continual funding for "X" years is in place.

 

So what happens to the canal you restore when C&RT say, "you cannot connect it to the network, and, we will not take into our portfolio" ?

 

 

Maybe the restorers could use their fundraising skills, organisational and building skills do  something constructive and assist C&RT on some of the failing 'main network' ?

I can’t say I disagree totally with those sentiments.….but on the other hand,

having restoration projects on the go shows/highlights how important canals are to folk/communities/towns. 
It could be exactly what we need to keep things in the public eye and promote more government awareness to the value of the Waterways. 
The money’s coming from somewhere, a lot of bodies/organisations are investing in restoration projects, shouldn’t this be seen as a positive?