Farmers pumping out water (for irrigation ? )........

[Justin Smith]

We were cruising over the top of the Oxford canal a few days ago and spotted a petrol driven pump abstracting water from the canal, probably for irrigation.

This stretch of the Oxford canal is notorious for being short of water, which makes it all the more serious, so I phoned BW to report it, but never heard anything.

Is it actually illegal for farmers to pump water out of the canals ? I`d have thought it was !

Has anyone else ever reported water abstraction and if so what happened ?

[CanalWalker]

They can do it if they have an agreement with BW.

[David]

They pay, some do display the abstraction certificate on the pump/by the extraction equipment, others don't so they may have paid and just not displayed or they maybe "stealing" the water in effect. Not displaying is silly as it then means boaters like yourself would then know it was by arrangement, local bank staff know the abstraction is legal so no need to check etc etc.

david

[carpetbloke]

They pay, some do display the abstraction certificate on the pump/by the extraction equipment, others don't so they may have paid and just not displayed or they maybe "stealing" the water in effect. Not displaying is silly as it then means boaters like yourself would then know it was by arrangement, local bank staff know the abstraction is legal so no need to check etc etc.

david

I saw one on my cruise the other week.

I think it was on the Coventry Canal near Tamworth.

It was really well marked to show it was an authorised pump.

[Justin Smith]

They can do it if they have an agreement with BW.

 

I assume they have to pay for that ?

The thing is, one assumes that the farmers would be particularly keen to pump out the water in periods of dry weather, which is just when the canals are short of it ! That particular section of the Oxford canal, between Claydon and Napton, was really low on water, we grounded more than once, particularly when boats came the other way as we were going round left hand bends. Plus there were water shortage notices pinned to all the locks, many of which were p*****g huge quantities of water through the gates one might add......

Edited June 11, 2011 by Justin Smith

[CV32]

I think that at the point that there is insufficient water available because BW have allowed farmers to pump it onto their fields you should be entitled to compensation on a daily basis - it would probably be cheaper for the farmer to fill in his european subsidy form for compensation and save the water in the canal.

[Morat]

In my humble opinion, farming is more important that the level of water in canals.

[CV32]

In my humble opinion, farming is more important that the level of water in canals.

 

I do not disagree, my point is that we pay to be able to navigate the canals. If BW choose to make that impossible from their leaky system (a bit like thames water letting millions of gallons leak all the time) AND by letting farmers pump water for their crops then surely we are entitled to a refund of sort. Perhaps a daily rate (1/365th) per day of the license paid.

[carlt]

my point is that we pay to be able to navigate the canals.

No you don't.

 

There is no right of navigation. It was abolished by section 105(5) of The Transport Act, 1968.

 

 

Section 17 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1873 (which requires the Board to maintain certain inland waterways) shall cease to apply to any inland waterway which on the date on which this section comes into force is comprised in the undertaking of the Board; and any local enactment passed with respect to any such inland waterway, so far as that enactment—

 

(a)confers any public or private right of navigation over the waterway; or

 

(b)imposes any duty to maintain that waterway for the purpose of navigation (including any duty to supply, or maintain a supply of, water for the waterway for that purpose),

 

shall cease to have effect.

Edited June 11, 2011 by carlt

[PhilR]

Licences to abstact water from the canals has historically been a good source of income for BW.

[Midnight Rider]

No you don't.

 

There is no right of navigation. It was abolished by section 105(5) of The Transport Act, 1968.

Filling in for mayalld while he's away

ETA -- missed the ? out

Edited June 11, 2011 by Midnight Rider

[carlt]

Filling in for mayalld while he's away

Not really, he's not the only one who knows the legislation.

 

We regularly disagree on the interpretation.

[CV32]

No you don't.

 

There is no right of navigation. It was abolished by section 105(5) of The Transport Act, 1968.

 

So what are we actually paying for then ? I buy a train ticket, the train is cancelled and they provide the next one or i get a refund. You go to the airport to catch a flight, they don't say 'sorry we have run out of fuel' and wave you good by.

 

BW charge a license fee and the purpose of having it is to be able to navigate the canals, the transport act (1968) may have abolished that but it is non sense.

[Darren72]

In my humble opinion, farming is more important that the level of water in canals.

 

 

We are living on an island. No need for it!

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Licences to abstact water from the canals has historically been a good source of income for BW.

 

.... but licencing boats is a much better one!

 

Water sales produced gross income of £4.3m in 2009/10 down from £5m the previous year.

 

Licences produced £16.8m gross in 2009/10 up from £15.1m the previous year.

[carlt]

 

BW charge a license fee and the purpose of having it is to be able to navigate the canals, the transport act (1968) may have abolished that but it is non sense.

You are confusing common sense with the law.

 

You are paying for permission to have your boat on the water.

 

Regardless of how much nonsense it is, you have no right of navigation.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

You are confusing common sense with the law.

 

You are paying for permission to have your boat on the water.

 

Regardless of how much nonsense it is, you have no right of navigation.

 

Perhaps Paul Davies should have tried "I have no right of navigation" as a defense.

[carlt]

Perhaps Paul Davies should have tried "I have no right of navigation" as a defense.

Perhaps, but he has no right to stay in one place for longer than 14 days, either.

[Justme]

.... but licencing boats is a much better one!

 

Water sales produced gross income of £4.3m in 2009/10 down from £5m the previous year.

 

Licences produced £16.8m gross in 2009/10 up from £15.1m the previous year.

 

 

But which one costs the most to offer as a service?

 

 

My money is on the extraction licences costing almost nothing to run & makes more bottom line profit that the boat licences.

[boatyboy]

Last year during the leeds and liverpool stoppage because lack of water,Farmers were still drawing water off to irrigate fields.I contacted BW.And they told me they were allowed to because an old act of parliment sighned during the construction of the canal across their land.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

But which one costs the most to offer as a service?

 

 

My money is on the extraction licences costing almost nothing to run & makes more bottom line profit that the boat licences.

 

You would lose your bet on the bottom line. Net contribution (i.e. bottom line) from boat licences is £13.8m. That is still over three times the gross income for water supply.

 

.... and then there is mooring income.....

[Justme]

You would lose your bet on the bottom line. Net contribution (i.e. bottom line) from boat licences is £13.8m. That is still over three times the gross income for water supply.

 

.... and then there is mooring income.....

 

 

So they have running costs of only £3m per year & declare £13.8m corporate taxable profits?

 

If thats true its obscene on a turnover of £16.8m

[Dominic M]

...... AND by letting farmers pump water for their crops then surely we are entitled to a refund of sort. Perhaps a daily rate (1/365th) per day of the license paid.

For "their crops" read "our food". If farmers have to pay more for water, then so will we all when that crop reaches the shops.

[john-m]

do you think that leisure should come before industy, I know there are a handful of people making a living selling coal and fuel on the canals but do you not realise that no rain means no food = higher food prices. some areas are a total write off and most of europe are in the same boat.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

So they have running costs of only £3m per year & declare £13.8m corporate taxable profits?

 

If thats true its obscene on a turnover of £16.8m

 

I said nothing about corporation tax. The £16.8m is gross income and the £13.8m net after deducting payroll and other costs associated with generating that income. About half the £3m difference is the cost of 65 staff.

 

Of course, licence fees are paid up front. I think water extraction is paid for in arrears. BW has a financial incentive to supply farmers and others with water at the expense of boaters as well as a moral one.