Reducing water abstraction

[Pond digger]

According to an article in the CLA mag, the EA are wanting to reduce water abstraction by revoking unused and underused licenses. Can someone explain the logic? Surely the way to reduce abstraction is to revoke/reduce licences that are active?

 

[Exfarmer]

According to an article in the CLA mag, the EA are wanting to reduce water abstraction by revoking unused and underused licenses. Can someone explain the logic? Surely the way to reduce abstraction is to revoke/reduce licences that are active?

If you do that you are damaging an existing business. There used to be a lot of unused licences from applications made just in case and those where a business has discontinued the extractioon for any number of reasons, such as giving up growing potatoes.
They actually have had a long standing policy of reducing underused licences.
However these licences can be worth a lot of money and landowners with them, should look at trading them if they do not use them.

 

[Dave645]

According to an article in the CLA mag, the EA are wanting to reduce water abstraction by revoking unused and underused licenses. Can someone explain the logic? Surely the way to reduce abstraction is to revoke/reduce licences that are active?

It looks good on paper that they reduce the extraction lisenced total by ex amount while not actualy stopping anyone doing it, but it does stop trading and does reduce the cap on the maximum that can be extracted. In a dry year which is their long term goal by the sound of it, It's the path of least resistance, only if things become bad where they have to reduce abstraction beyond what's being unused. Where then they are likly to go on an area by area case by case basis, so areas suffering from water shortages and cap a bit off everyone in that area, even if they are using it.
But it seems a sensible approach to reduce the max available for abstraction by taking away unused abstraction licences first.

 

[Pond digger]

It looks good on paper that they reduce the extraction lisenced total by ex amount while not actualy stopping anyone doing it, but it does stop trading and does reduce the cap on the maximum that can be extracted. In a dry year which is their long term goal by the sound of it, It's the path of least resistance, only if things become bad where they have to reduce abstraction beyond what's being unused. Where then they are likly to go on an area by area case by case basis, so areas suffering from water shortages and cap a bit off everyone in that area, even if they are using it.
But it seems a sensible approach to reduce the max available for abstraction by taking away unused abstraction licences first.

Sensible yes, but how does it reduce overall abstraction? Potentially it frees up water for others to use, so logically it could have exactly the opposite effect.

 

[Dave645]

Sensible yes, but how does it reduce overall abstraction? Potentially it frees up water for others to use, so logically it could have exactly the opposite effect.

I would say is the current level of abstraction a problem On an average year?
It's more likely it would be a problem if all the licences were maxed out on a dry year. So the carefully approach is ok.
Also a year like this a lot may have gone unused or only partly used if they take this year to reduce lisences it will have a greater effect, than if it was a dry year with more than average irrigation used. So actualy they will be cutting into abstraction amounts needed in normal years never mind dry years.
So doing it on a wet year like this will have maximum effect actually.
Farmers may find they struggle in normal or dry years on their reduced licences. It's clever timing and the wording makes it sound it will have little effect, but it was a wet year........

 

[Exfarmer]

Sensible yes, but how does it reduce overall abstraction? Potentially it frees up water for others to use, so logically it could have exactly the opposite effect.

if the EA do remove/reduce an existing licence , the water is only available to others if they grant it.
of course they are under pressure from the water companies to increase the availability of more abstraction to them, as it costs relatively little to buy a new licence compared to purchasing existing from farmers and others.
there used to be many licences of right which had been granted before the EA came along and revoked them.
These were never considered in terms of environment but the right to abstract over others in the area. So if you had a right to 10 million gallons granted before your neighbours 10m then if you could prove your neighbours abstraction was hindering your own , you had the right to stop him. This would especially apply to open water licences.
these ancient licences were often grossly more than had ever been used to protect a water source. The EA changed all the licences into a standard licence but still with rights exceeding modern abstractors. However they have been trimming the licence down where it is blatantly obvious the farmer has not been using them.
today these licences are tradable and can be pretty valuable to farmers ,water companies etc so you should consider your options carefully if you have such but do not indeed use it.
I know of one 10m licence was rumoured to have sold for 50K

 

[Exfarmer]

I would say is the current level of abstraction a problem On an average year?
It's more likely it would be a problem if all the licences were maxed out on a dry year. So the carefully approach is ok.
Also a year like this a lot may have gone unused or only partly used if they take this year to reduce lisences it will have a greater effect, than if it was a dry year with more than average irrigation used. So actualy they will be cutting into abstraction amounts needed in normal years never mind dry years.
So doing it on a wet year like this will have maximum effect actually.
Farmers may find they struggle in normal or dry years on their reduced licences. It's clever timing and the wording makes it sound it will have little effect, but it was a wet year........

in the past the EA have never reduced a licence where the farmer was regularly using a fair proportion, I do know of 30m gallon licence which was chopped in half as it had not been used for 20+ years.
To avoid this if you have such a licence unused it is possible to lease it to anyone in the same immediate catchment, well worth considering even if they pay very little to avoid losing it.