Thousands of people gathered near to this place, on 7 May 1989, to protest about privatisation of the water industry, fearing that privatisation would threaten public access to the land owned by water companies. History shows their fears to have been well-founded.
The issue of land surrounding the reservoirs was, to a certain extent, addressed later by the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000, but CRoW signally failed to address the issue of access to water. Arguably, in this context, CRoW made matters worse.
Water companies (and other water management corporations) have an obligation to provide public access for recreation.
Unfortunately for the wild swimmers, kayakers, paddle boarders, water skiers and the like must cross the land surrounding the reservoirs to access the water. Although this would only constitute a Civil Offence and not punishable in any way, it is a restriction that can deter some from their chosen activity. The water itself does not belong to anybody, corporation or company and therefore the water has a Public Right of Navigation (Subject to Wills Trustees v Cairngorm Canoeing and Sailing School: HL 1976). Seaplanes access the water from above and are not restricted in any way but we fully support "Responsible Access For All"
Water Industry Act:
“…so long as that company has rights to the use of water or land associated with water, that those rights are exercised so as to ensure that the water or land is made available for recreational purposes and is so made available in the best manner.”
The intention of the Act seems clear; but water companies (and other water management corporations) seem to have assumed a high degree of control over what they can enable, allow or forbid; in, on or around the waters. Strategy often appears to be based on exclusion and restriction rather than participation.
Bye-laws are used to enable even further restrictions that can be placed on public enjoyment of reservoirs. Some water companies seek to discharge their obligation to provide public recreational access by authorising one activity or user-group to the exclusion of all others. This is not only inequitable but can be divisive; particularly where the permitted user is charged with the responsibility for ‘policing’ access.
Water management corporations could resolve the issue by policy changes; but to date they have failed to do so. Governments have failed to hold water companies to account against their obligations to provide public access; but water management corporations need to consider not just the ‘letter of the law’ but also their moral obligation to the public.
Water companies (and other water management corporations) have an obligation to provide public access for recreation.
Unfortunately for the wild swimmers, kayakers, paddle boarders, water skiers and the like must cross the land surrounding the reservoirs to access the water. Although this would only constitute a Civil Offence and not punishable in any way, it is a restriction that can deter some from their chosen activity. The water itself does not belong to anybody, corporation or company and therefore the water has a Public Right of Navigation (Subject to Wills Trustees v Cairngorm Canoeing and Sailing School: HL 1976). Seaplanes access the water from above and are not restricted in any way but we fully support "Responsible Access For All"
Water Industry Act:
“…so long as that company has rights to the use of water or land associated with water, that those rights are exercised so as to ensure that the water or land is made available for recreational purposes and is so made available in the best manner.”
The intention of the Act seems clear; but water companies (and other water management corporations) seem to have assumed a high degree of control over what they can enable, allow or forbid; in, on or around the waters. Strategy often appears to be based on exclusion and restriction rather than participation.
Bye-laws are used to enable even further restrictions that can be placed on public enjoyment of reservoirs. Some water companies seek to discharge their obligation to provide public recreational access by authorising one activity or user-group to the exclusion of all others. This is not only inequitable but can be divisive; particularly where the permitted user is charged with the responsibility for ‘policing’ access.
Water management corporations could resolve the issue by policy changes; but to date they have failed to do so. Governments have failed to hold water companies to account against their obligations to provide public access; but water management corporations need to consider not just the ‘letter of the law’ but also their moral obligation to the public.