Adrian stated: > Periodic dredging, carried out every few years whenever the siltation > has reduced the dimensions of the actual water cross-section below the > values required for the convenient passage of craft, to remove all the > silt that has accumulated since the last time such dredging took > place, is maintenance. It is a "revenue" item, in > localauthorityspeak. > > One-time dredging to recover a larger (best, the original) water > cross-section after a long time during which this cross-section had > not been recovered during dredging, is restoration. It is not > maintenance. It is a "capital" item.
Ahh, then you have a different concept of restoration on the canals than me. For example, I consider the Lichfield and Hatherton to be a restoration project. I do not consider the recovery of a previous gauge profile of, say, the GU to it's original dimensions to be restoration project as the GU is neither disused nor neglected in the conventional understanding of those terms when applied to the waterways. As to what budget it comes from, what end-user really cares, as long as it gets done? > As a closing point, not doing dredging is *not* a way of saving money, > as the silt continues to be deposited in the channel and has to be > removed at some point. In fact, putting it off actually *wastes* > money, as navigation in a restricted channel increases the erosion of > the banks, which is expensive to fix and which deposits more silt in > the channel (which must then also be removed). I agree entirely that the 'stitch in time' approach is the best, rather than waiting for a disaster or major works. I completely agree with your point about neglected dredging causing bank erosion. I see the problem at first hand when boating in my reasonably deep- draughted boat (nothing like an ex-working boat, I hasten to add) and I can barely move without causing a breaking wash on the shelving and silted (usually) off-side bank. > > So the additional maintenance cost of providing a channel for > full-gauge craft is actually a myth. Now had you added the phrase 'once the original design profile had been achieved' into that sentence I would agree entirely. Unfortunately we are in a position where, despite the improved funding of BW over recent years they still could not dredge the system to achieve reasonable (let alone good) standards. That being so (and a known fact) then it is almost impossible to conceive that things will get better under the present budget funding proposals. Having dragged my way, in a good impression of The African Queen, over parts of the Rushall and the Wyrley and Essington recently, I think I can say that with reasonable authority (Yes I know that they're classed as remainder, but they serve a thriving canal based community and several boat yards and deserve to be much better than they are, or are ever likely to be at this rate) > > NT has the money to recover the original profile on the Wey -- it is > quite a rich outfit -- but it has simply refused to do so. That's why > I would like to replace it as the navigation authority. I have to say that I cannot see why NT should be a navigation authority at all. Better to place waterways with those that are experienced in their management IMO. Roger
