This page describes some of the key issues the Save Our Waterways campaign will be addressing:
Britain's inland waterways system is part of our national heritage, acting as the backbone of many communities. It supports 54,000 jobs whilst offering historical, environmental and recreational resources that enhance the lives millions. It threads through urban and rural areas that in some places are national jewels and in others a national disgrace.
Our biggest concern is maintenance. British Waterways tell us that they have barely £100 million to manage a waterway that costs £125 million to run. Yet they have a statutory responsibility to keep the waterways open and fit for purpose. Clearly they have a very complex job juggling maintenance, having to postpone jobs that may be unsightly but uncritical in favour of those that would have more serious consequences if they weren't fixed.
BW manages this complex tightrope by classifying all each of the 11,000 structures that form part of the waterways as in A to E condition - where A is good and E is poor - and adding to that a 'consequence of failure' rating of 1 to 5 where 1 is of little or no consequence and 5 anticipates damage in excess of £5 million.
This policy keeps us safe but the shortage of funds mean that we see now with increasing frequency what SOW member Tony Haynes has dubbed as "DEFRA Rash", areas requiring repair that are surrounded with bright orange plastic netting. Untreated areas with "DEFRA rash" get worse, and the longer they are left the more expensive the eventual repair.
The pictures on the right of examples at Alrewas and Marsden show this clearly. Does our Government have so little respect for our heritage that this is allowed to continue?
The waterways serve the agendas of a number of Government departments - notably those concerned with transport, sport, local communities, transport, education, health and, of course, the Treasury. In particular, waterway development is closely linked to community aspirations, rising property values, transport, tourism, jobs and trade.
Following one of the recommendations of the EFRA Select Committee's inquiry into the effects that the cuts had on BW, the new Waterway's Minister, Jonathan Shaw instigated the formation of an interdepartmental working group (IWG) comprising his Ministerial counter-parts in those government departments that benefit from the waterways but make little or no contribution to the cost or, in may cases, smooth running, of the waterways.
SOW plans to keep the IWG informed about the views of its members at the community level.
The embankment collapse on the Monmouthshire and Brecon Canal in Wales and the extraordinary weather of 2007 further highlighted the foolhardiness of shaving BW budgets to the point where optimal maintenance is not possible. The combined costs of the Mon and Brec collapse (£10 million) and flood control (£8 million) surely influenced BW's decision to pull out of the Cotswold Canals Partnership.
The responsibility for flood defence lies with the Environment Agency, also part of DEFRA, but BW played an important part during the floods of 2007 and it cost them dearly.
SOW believes that Government should find a way to reimburse BW for the £8 million expense incurred in flood control. This should be done during the current year so that BW's maintenance targets are not further compromised. Having that £8 million reimbursed could cure an awful lot of Defra Rash!
The inland waterways pass through more than half of the country's Local Authorities, enhancing property values and bringing trade yet many LA's enjoy these benefits without making any contribution towards the costs of maintaining the waterway in good order.
In fact, by not controlling fly-tipping into the waterways, too many local communities actually compound the problem. There exceptions to the rule and some local authorities take great pride in their waterway but BW still spend an estimated £5 million per annum on such items as towpath maintenance, rubbish removal, reparation after vandalism and the provision of waterside amenities like water and rubbish bins.
Surely it is not too much to ask Local Authorities to take responsibility for their local environment to encourage their citizens to exercise good citizenship to reduce the incidence of plastic bags, shopping trolleys and other rubbish that is thrown into the waterways in many areas?
Again, this is an area which SOW believes will benefit from attracting members from local communities.
Its one thing for the navigation authorities to impose increases in boating and angling licenses that are way beyond inflation and to lay the blame on the cuts made by DEFRA. It is another to impose the increases and not guarantee anything in return.
Further increases are threatened to occur on each of the next 3 years and there is a school of thought - and perhaps already some evidence on EA waters - that further increases will simply drive many existing users away from boating or at least away from boating in the UK.
BW and EA need to investigate the effect of the rising cost of boating particularly in the light of the forthcoming huge increases in the cost of diesel.
Any increases should be clearly linked to an annually agreed set of targets. In particular there should be a policy of zero tolerance on unlicensed boats. BW have made good inroads in this regard but shouldn't be allowed to become complacent again.
Targets need to be related to the reduction of the maintenance backlog and improved boating safety standards and customer service.
British Waterways is a public corporation mandated by government to manage and care for the waterways on behalf of the nation.
BW is funded through a combination of grants and income from property, commercial activities and leisure. Leisure income represents some 20% of non-grant income yet there are no Board members who specifically represent the stakeholders who generate that income.
SOW believes that there should be at least one board member to represent the interests of leisure users.