Is this true?

From the latest Radio Times...

"Make sure you know where to get in and out of a river, as you shouldn't be trespassing across private land. Although you're legally allowed to swim in most places, there are issues with land ownership and, sometimes, with anglers. It's a shame; people have as much right to swim as anglers have to fish. We should share Britain's waterways."

Wild Swimming with Alice Roberts is coming soon on BBC4.

I was always under the impression that anglers don't have a "right" to fish anywhere. So is it the same case for swimmers..............?

I think that river 'ownership' is very much a matter of profiteering if it has commercial worth in its natural state, ie, it contains an exploitable natural and even farmable resource that people will pay a pretty penny for the privilege of; salmon and trout fishing on rich chalk streams for instance, or a cynical turning a blind eye if polluted and quite useless as a cash cow, because no-one actually owns the water or anything it contains, including the fish, but only the land that runs beneath it.

Hence the parlous state of some rivers and the pristine state of others. They should all be perfectly clean and pure, but the law as it stands more or less ensures that the present state of affairs will remain in status quo. I'd guess...

I'm pretty sure that all fresh water is owned. All water that falls or runs through the catchment area of a water provider is owned by that provider. Which is why you have to pay that provider to abstract not the land owner.

MarkTodd said:

I'm pretty sure that all fresh water is owned. All water that falls or runs through the catchment area of a water provider is owned by that provider. Which is why you have to pay that provider to abstract not the land owner.

Click to expand...

No. It's more like Rufus says, "no-one actually owns the water or anything it contains, including the fish, but only the land that runs beneath it."

The utility companies only apply and pay for a "licence" to abstract, not for the material (water) or quantity they abstract although the amount can be set in the licence - as far as I'm aware (could be different in another part of the country or Scotland).

Nothing is more complicated than our rivers.

Edit: Just thought of a twist though - take the case where a company has constructed (or bought) a reservoir to collect water. It could be said that the water it contains is then owned by that company so if you went along and stole a bucket full, they could charge you with theft, I suppose. Up until that point where it is held in the reservoir though, it is free water. Beyond the reservoir, you have to pay for it through your water rates or a water meter.

The other exception is if you decided to take all the water from a course and divert it to your land, then then original landowner does have the right to the have the original stream restored across his own land. This is a useful law for anglers who enjoy a flow of water only then to find it dry up because a company is abstracting every drop for use as tap water or whatever. The anglers have to right to have their flow, or part at least, restored.

Like I say, nothing is more complicated......

The issue I had with the particular quote was that that it seemed to be continuing the current trend of TV presenters to use the publicity generated by their latest "outdoor" series to stick the boot into anglers. Griff Rhys Jones etc.

A neighbour built a big pond...and I mean big, half an acre.


They were made to fill it in, even though it only collected rainwater and had no flow into it. They were told they had to apply to the EA for a license to extract water, even though it was only rainfall, just as though they were drilling a well!

Absurd!


Having watched my fishing club contend with just such an application now, for two years, I doubt they will bother.

No, it's not true that people have a right to swim in rivers. The law in England is summarised in this pro swimming website:


Wild Swimming - access, law and respect

access, law and respect . sadly some values of human decency that are ignored by some these days.................

How does it work if the swimmer gets tired and leaves the water, then surely it's trespass as he/she would not have the rite to be on the land?

MarkTodd said:

How does it work if the swimmer gets tired and leaves the water, then surely it's trespass as he/she would not have the rite to be on the land?

Click to expand...

Yes, it would be trespass.

Reading the information on the wild swimming web site, a person wishing to swim in a stretch of river needs permission from the riparian owner to cross his land and to swim in his river. An exception might be if there is a public right of way along the bank of the river, and for many years the public have bathed in the river without being challenged by the riparian owner.