Troubled Waters – The Many Struggles Of The Canal And River Trust

[Robert_Scoble]

Troubled Waters – The Many Struggles Of The Canal And River Trust

https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/troubled-waters-many-struggles-canal-river-trust

[Alan de Enfield]

 

That's a pretty good read - obviously slightly biased to make the story better, but not bad.

 

Surely the article points out potential changes C&RT could make - if a quiet, non-connected backwater is costing CART £100,000 a week then, whilst it maybe providing an income for local tourist based busineses, why should C&RT alone fund that ? The £5,200,000 could be better spent on waterways that provide a fair income for C&RT, for the loss of a few M&B 'boat licence fees'.

 

The costs keep coming. The Monmouthshire and Brecon canal is now costing £100,000 a week because it is using an emergency water supply, owing to a change in legislation that restricts the amount that can be funnelled from the River Usk and its tributaries for environmental reasons.

 

Whoever ends up as the boss of C&RT needs to grow some balls and take the actions needed.

[IanD]

26 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

That's a pretty good read - obviously slightly biased to make the story better, but not bad.

 

Surely the article points out potential changes C&RT could make - if a quiet, non-connected backwater is costing CART £100,000 a week then, whilst it maybe providing an income for local tourist based busineses, why should C&RT alone fund that ? The £5,200,000 could be better spent on waterways that provide a fair income for C&RT, for the loss of a few M&B 'boat licence fees'.

 

The costs keep coming. The Monmouthshire and Brecon canal is now costing £100,000 a week because it is using an emergency water supply, owing to a change in legislation that restricts the amount that can be funnelled from the River Usk and its tributaries for environmental reasons.

 

Whoever ends up as the boss of C&RT needs to grow some balls and take the actions needed.

 

All fine to say, except that any attempt to do such things would lead to screams of protest from boaters affected (and probably the NBTA...), who care about their own personal situation not the viability of CART and the canal system. Same as when any proposals are put forward to enforce mooring/CC rules or increase license fees or the way they're charged (e.g. more differentiation between different boaters) with loud cries of "unfair", ignoring the fact that this is what any other organisation would do in CART's position -- the attitude is always "somebody else should pay, not me"...

 

Even with the M&B -- indeed, the whole canal network! -- the (valid!) arguments against closing are all to do with amenities and local businesses and tourism, ignoring the fact that the costs of keeping it open fall on CART but these real benefits fall to other people. If these benefits to society are indeed far bigger than the cost of running the canals -- which all the analyses seem to show -- then some of the monetary benefits should be used to fund CART. And since local direct fees and taxes are impractical and the benefit falls on "society" and that is the government's responsibility, surely some of this funding should come from government?

 

It's the same as anything that benefits society as a whole but costs money to an organisation that doesn't see these benefits but has to pick up the tab -- for example the NHS, police, fire services. And yes these are seen as much more important, but that's really no excuse for letting the canals fall into rack and ruin because nobody in government can be bothered to address the problem... 😞 

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

All fine to say, except that any attempt to do such things would lead to screams of protest from boaters affected (and probably the NBTA...)

 

So what ! - how many boats are licenced on the M&B (100 , 200 ?)

So 100/200  boaters boaters protest - if they want it to stay open remove the licence requiremenst and let them each pay £1000 per week for the benfit of using the waterway, or, get the local tourism providers, or Goverment, to subsidise them

Their tune would soon change.

 

C&RT need to firmly grasp the nettle and make unpopular decisions for the good of the majority of the system.

[Jerra]

9 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

So what ! - how many boats are licenced on the M&B (100 , 200 ?)

So 100/200  boaters boaters protest - if they want it to stay open remove the licence requiremenst and let them each pay £1000 per week for the benfit of using the waterway, or, get the local tourism providers, or Goverment, to subsidise them

Their tune would soon change.

 

C&RT need to firmly grasp the nettle and make unpopular decisions for the good of the majority of the system.

An interesting view from somebody who no longer uses the canals.

 

I think you need to have a figure higher than registered boats, any body who wishes to ever have a holiday on the canal might protest.  Other boaters knowing this is the thin end of the wedge would also I think need included in a list of those likely to protest.

 

I agree firm action is required on all sorts of things by CRT but I also feel the backlash shouldn't be under estimated.

[IanD]

13 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

So what ! - how many boats are licenced on the M&B (100 , 200 ?)

So 100/200  boaters boaters protest - if they want it to stay open remove the licence requiremenst and let them each pay £1000 per week for the benfit of using the waterway, or, get the local tourism providers, or Goverment, to subsidise them

Their tune would soon change.

 

C&RT need to firmly grasp the nettle and make unpopular decisions for the good of the majority of the system.

 

I agree, I'm just pointing out that there would be lots of noisy resistance for this, including calls for the CEO to resign because he's useless -- just like there have been for years about Parry, in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

 

There's no doubt that paying £100k per week to keep the M&B in water is completely unsustainable, but I'm sure a way could be found to magically make this problem disappear rather than closing the canal. OTOH maybe an announcement to this effect from CART ("This is unsustainable, we're closing the canal permanently") and the resulting outcry would be the trigger to make this actually happen -- I think at the moment nobody believes the canal will close, so there's no big incentive to fix the problem by the people who can actually do this. Which is not CART, it's the government and their ministries and departments... 😉 

Edited May 20, 2025 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, Jerra said:

An interesting view from somebody who no longer uses the canals.

 

I think you need to have a figure higher than registered boats, any body who wishes to ever have a holiday on the canal might protest.  Other boaters knowing this is the thin end of the wedge would also I think need included in a list of those likely to protest.

 

I agree firm action is required on all sorts of things by CRT but I also feel the backlash shouldn't be under estimated.

 

Yes, I am no longer on the canals, but having spent some 40 years 'on the canals', I think I am in a position to make suggestions.

 

With regard to holiday makers / boat hire, then there are many alternatives on waterways just as nice.

(If you cannot get a holiday booked to your choice of location in Spain, you can always consider one of the many alternatives.)

 

If this were to happen, then yes, it probably is the thin edge of the wedge and other hard decsions on peripheral waterways MAY need to be made.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jerra]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Yes, I am no longer on the canals, but having spent some 40 years 'on the canals', I think I am in a position to make suggestions.

 

With regard to holiday makers / boat hire, then there are many alternatives on waterways just as nice.

(If you cannot get a holiday booked to your choice of location in Spain, you can always consider one of the many alternatives.)

You assume it is just looking for a holiday not an ambition of "one day I will...."

 

I have come across boaters who have hired to go on canals they can't reach by their own boat and also ones that intend to at some point in the future.

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

If this were to happen, then yes, it probably is the thin edge of the wedge and other hard decsions on peripheral waterways MAY need to be made.

I think it is naive to think the kick up would be from very few.

[Heartland]

Are the Welsh Government at fault for not protecting the canal which provides revenue for the area? 

 

The long term use of the river as a supply for two independent waterways would have had parliamentary approval when each received their act, so how can a greedy privatised water company keen to get as much as possible for its shareholders change that state of affairs!

 

 

[TheBiscuits]

1 hour ago, Heartland said:

The long term use of the river as a supply for two independent waterways would have had parliamentary approval when each received their act, so how can a greedy privatised water company keen to get as much as possible for its shareholders change that state of affairs!

 

Because:

 

On 20/05/2025 at 09:28, Alan de Enfield said:

it is using an emergency water supply, owing to a change in legislation that restricts the amount that can be funnelled from the River Usk and its tributaries for environmental reasons.

 

(My bold)

 

 

Edited June 5, 2025 by TheBiscuits
clarity

[jonesthenuke]

Noting that the water supply is restricted "due to environmental reasons" I fail to see how handing over £100k per week (or any monetary value) corrects the environmental dis-benefit of taking the water from the river? Is this just a money grab?

[IanD]

20 minutes ago, jonesthenuke said:

Noting that the water supply is restricted "due to environmental reasons" I fail to see how handing over £100k per week (or any monetary value) corrects the environmental dis-benefit of taking the water from the river? Is this just a money grab?

Yes.

[ditchcrawler]

I will let you know what its like next week, I will be a hirer again after 30 odd years 

[haggis]

2 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

I will let you know what its like next week, I will be a hirer again after 30 odd years 

You getting your Mon and Brec trip then? I wondered if you would with the water problems

 

Edited June 5, 2025 by haggis

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, jonesthenuke said:

Noting that the water supply is restricted "due to environmental reasons" I fail to see how handing over £100k per week (or any monetary value) corrects the environmental dis-benefit of taking the water from the river? Is this just a money grab?

 

Pretty much like the Low Emission Zones - nasty smelly cars are banned because they cause pollution and kill people - but - if you pay us some money you are welcome !

[Cheese]

1 hour ago, jonesthenuke said:

Noting that the water supply is restricted "due to environmental reasons" I fail to see how handing over £100k per week (or any monetary value) corrects the environmental dis-benefit of taking the water from the river? Is this just a money grab?

Worse than that there isn't really any environmental impact or saving at all.  It's not as if the water CaRT are now having to purchase is being trucked in from somewhere else with a surplus supply.  According to the BBC it is coming from the Usk Reservoir, about 15 miles upstream on the Usk from Brecon.   So the net effect on the amount of water in the Usk catchment is going to be unchanged, but there is a transfer of cash from CaRT to Welsh Water!

[MtB]

6 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Pretty much like the Low Emission Zones - nasty smelly cars are banned because they cause pollution and kill people - but - if you pay us some money you are welcome !

 

'Xactly.

 

Or put more bluntly, pay us £12 a day and all the children supposedly being damaged by all the car pollution can go fcuk themselves.

 

Nice wine, this...