Raup, Henry A.

English

University of New Mexico

Volume 10 
Issue 1 Winter 1970 
Winter 1970 
Water Management Innovations in England, by Lyle E. Craine 
Henry A. Raup 
Recommended Citation 
Henry A. Raup, Water Management Innovations in England, by Lyle E. Craine, 10 Nat. Resources J. 188 
(1970). 
Available at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nrj/vol10/iss1/12 
This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UNM Digital Repository. It has 
been accepted for inclusion in Natural Resources Journal by an authorized editor of UNM Digital Repository. For 
more information, please contact amywinter@unm.edu, lsloane@salud.unm.edu, sarahrk@unm.edu. 
BOOK REVIEWS
Water Management Innovations In England
By
LYLE E. CRAINE
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press for Resources for the Future. 1969.
Pp. x, 123, $3.50.
With the passage and implementation of a single law-the Water
Resources Act of 1963-England has emerged as a leader in water
resources administration. In the belief that the United States might
profit from the experience of British water administration, Lyle E.
Craine has prepared this study of recent water management in-
novations in England. The principal focus of the book is upon in-
novations introduced by the Water Resources Act and upon an
evaluation of the potential effectiveness of the institutional arrange-
ments in achieving desired water management objectives in England.
While he makes it clear that techniques which may work in England
may not necessarily work in the United States, the examination of
British water administration may still give us fruitful and reward-
ing ideas.
Prior to 1963, British water management had evolved in a rather
haphazard manner, with no comprehensive national water policy
and with little direction or guidance from the national government.
The institutional structure of water management favored local
solutions to problems and discouraged regional water development.
Dr. Craine reviews the earlier attempts at providing water man-
agement systems in England, which preceded and led to the Water
Resources Act.
The Act provides for a high degree of regional-level manage-
ment. While local agencies retain their functions in supply of water
to the consumer, and while national agencies (particularly the newly-
created Water Resources Board) have functions in over-all plan-
ning, coordination, assessment, and guidance, the primary respon-
sibility for comprehensive development and management of water
resources has been delegated to twenty-nine River Authorities. Each
River Authority covers a single drainage basin or group of smaller
basins, and possesses considerable autonomy, local representation,
and powers over water management. Flood control, land drainage,
river regulation, and development of new water supply sources, for
example, are all functions of the River Authorities.
While the Water Resources Act, coupled with previous legisla-
BOOK REFIEWS
tion, provides for a number of governmental powers in water man-
agement, the heart of Dr. Craine's book is an examination of three
major institutional elements-the legal powers under which the
Water Resources Board and the River Authorities operate, the
organizational structure of these agencies, and the devices used to
finance water management. Dr. Craine emphasizes six particular
legal powers (and related obligations) which the Water Resources
Act assigns to the River Authorities.
1. Each River Authority is required to develop and implement
a data collection scheme to permit accurate assessment of the avail-
able resource, and to organize a plan of action for the orderly de-
velopment of these resources. The Water Resources Board is also
assigned certain functions in the data collection and planning process,
particularly with respect to long-range planning.
2. The Water Resources Act requires each River Authority to
determine a "minimum acceptable flow"-a controversial subject
in England-for streamflow at selected points within its drainage
basin, to provide a basis for future water management decisions.
3. River Authorities are required to give their "consent" (via a
license) to any discharge of effluent into natural waters. This power,
derived from earlier Acts, is the principal means by which River
Authorities exert some control over pollution.
4. Since April 1, 1969, virtually every abstraction (i.e. with-
drawal) of water from surface or groundwater sources must be
licensed by the River Authority. Thus, the Authorities are able to
estimate potential demands upon their resources, and are provided a
tool by which future abstractions may be controlled.
5. Likewise, River Authorities are now authorized, and required,
to levy "abstraction charges," based upon the amount of water
licensed for abstraction. The abstraction charges, however, are in-
tended only to provide revenue for selected Authority functions (such
as development of a new water supply reservoir).
6. River Authorities are authorized to construct and operate water
management facilities (especially reservoirs). Additionally, the River
Authorities were given powers to coordinate and regulate projects
which are not under direct River Authority control-a necessary
step to the achievement of basin-wide management. In these various
ways, then, the River Authorities have specific obligations and broad
powers to provide for the comprehensive development of water re-
sources within their respective areas.
The organizational structure and the interrelationships among
the appropriate Cabinet Ministries (Housing and Local Govern-
ment, and Agriculture, Fisheries and Food), the Water Resources
Board, and the River Authorities are briefly described and ex-
JANUARY 1970]
NATURAL RESOURCES JOURNAL
amined. There has evolved a good working relationship among the
various management organizations, which has greatly facilitated
the exchange of ideas and the smooth operation of the various
management programs.
Financing for River Authority operations comes from a variety
of sources, which are examined. Continued from earlier legislation
are the assessments levied against other units of local government,
grants from the central government, etc. The use of abstraction
charges was introduced by the Water Resources Act. On the whole,
River Authorities appear to have adequate financial support.
In attempting to evaluate the relative effectiveness of water
management techniques in achieving desired objectives, six criteria
are developed (adequate financing, flexibility, the ability to apply
a full range of techniques, and so forth), against which the English
institutions may be evaluated. For the most part, using the criteria
established, English water institutions measure up favorably.
Nonetheless, unintentional or unavoidable flaws do exist in the
water institutions in England, a number of which are pointed out
by Dr. Craine. For example, although a water charging scheme
has been established, water charges are passed on to the consumer
in an indirect manner and charges do not reflect the value of water
in use. Likewise, the River Authorities have inadequate control
over pollution, especially lacking authorization to develop regional
waste disposal systems. Despite these and other weaknesses, the
water management institutions of England provide a high degree
of effectiveness in achieving integrated water management. The
period of haphazard water development in England has passed.
The principal weakness of the book is a matter of timing. The
bulk of the research took place after the passage of the Water
Resources Act in 1963, but before the Act came into operation on
April 1, 1965. As a result, the book (as the author states) deals
with management innovations as they were intended to operate,
rather than with innovations which have been tried and tested. In
practice, however, not all of the innovations introduced by the
Water Resources Act have functioned as intended, which has led
to some misleading conclusions. For example, while River Author-
ities are required to establish "minimum acceptable flows," in prac-
tice the River Authorities have been "too busy" to do so. Most
Authority engineers, who are not enamoured of the concept, con-
sider it to be a dead issue-in contrast to Dr. Craine's suggestion
that it ". . . seems likely to occupy a central place in British water
management" (p. 57). Certain other minor problems might have
been avoided if the study could have been updated during its long
[VOL. 10
BOOK REFIEWS
gestation period. For the American water manager, casting about
for new techniques, knowledge of what has happened in England
is as important as knowledge of what should have happened.
Unfortunately, as Dr. Craine points out, many innovations that
may be effective in England cannot be easily applied to the United
States as a whole. The insular character of Britain, its relatively
small size, its relatively humid conditions, its different legal struc-
ture, and so forth, make water management there a very different
proposition. The innovative techniques which have developed in
England would be most applicable in the U.S. at the state, rather
than the national level.
Water Management Innovations in England provides a useful
review both for the researcher embarking on other water studies in
England, and for the American water planner and manager seek-
ing new tools with which to bring about more efficient water re-
sources development. With Dr. Craine's recent appointment to the
National Water Commission, we may well see further reference to
recent innovations in British water management.
HENRY A. RAUP*
* Department of Geography, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan.
JANUARY 1970]


Water Management Innovations in England, by Lyle E. Craine

https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3485&amp;context=nrj

Water Management Innovations in England, by Lyle E. Craine

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of New Mexico