The Water Meadows

The meadows behind the Upper Mill, then known as the Grettons (now Meadow Way & River Way), were flooded during the winter and spring. Hatches were placed in the mill stream to flood the land, the ditches were cleaned and the water was regulated by "steps". Flooding produced two crops a year and necessitated a great deal of hard work. The men involved in this skilful job were Mr S. Price, followed by Mr J. Stephens and lastly Mr W. Dennis Stephens. On the death of Mr D. Stephens, Mrs Stephens gave the tools of this work to the local history group for a future village museum.

Water meadows were flooded or "drowned" as it was called from the main mill streams. The word "drowned" is misleading as they were not drowned in the proper sense of the word, but covered with moving (never stagnant) water only deep enough to show the tops of the grass above the water.

The preparing of the meadows began in the autumn when the "water carriers" and "let drys" were dug out and cleared. The "carriers" were the small ditches taking the water from the mill stream and the "let drys" the ditches taking the water back into the mill stream. The carriers took the water out, dividing again into smaller ditches, covering the meadow, and so into the "let drys" and back into the main stream. The water had, by law, to be returned to the mill stream.

The meadows, having been prepared, they were ready as soon as the rains started in say January or February. The meadows were then flooded or "drowned" anything up to two months. As soon as the sluices were opened to let the water into the meadows, men with chains dragged the main stream, thus stirring up the mud which would be carried with the swift flowing water over the meadows, thus manuring and fertilizing the ground. One farmer flooded his meadow, which was away from a main stream, from a small ditch running down the road, and his method of stirring up the mud was by dragging by horse a large tree trunk up and down the ditch.

If the meadow was, say, two fields in from the mill stream, the carrier would be obliged to cross other property. This was allowed, but if the meadow was in a difficult position to get the water back into the mill stream, the owner would be allowed to take the water back by the "let drys" into the main stream below the next mill.

(Mr D. Stephens )

Professional Irrigators

Extract from "The Ceiriog", Denbighshire, North Wales by David Llewelyn Davies, p.33

1810 – "The late Mr Lovett of Chirk (factor or agent) claimed the merit of first having introduced systematical watering into North Wales for which purpose he hired professional irrigators from South Cerney in Glos 'shire who floated 60 acres of his grassland with a stream from the R. Ceiriog. Since 1799 watering has become ten times more common." (p.305 in "General View of Agriculture and Domestic Economy of N. Wales" by Walter Davies, by order of Board of Agriculture)

Flooding the meadows

The irrigation (or flood) ditches were all dug level by eye. All the parish land up to Siddington was irrigated. The flood hatches were worked by Mr William Whitman for 7/6d an acre.

In the 1930's Mr David Iles worked the hatches along the river from Cerney Wick up to South Cerney. He walked the course of the river, and raised or lowered the hatches to let the water into the field channels or shut it off, perhaps twice a day according to the season.

At this time bores were sunk at Baunton, which affected Cerney water level. The water-cress beds dried up and even the Boxwell springs were dry in summer. By 1964 there was some water there again.

(Col. C. W. G. Walker)

Abstract of a report in the Wilts and Glos. Standard, page 5, 1895, 9th November.

Cirencester Petty Sessions:

A most Important Case - Water Rights

Plaintiffs	James Thomas Stanton Esq., The Lease, Eastington, Stroud.	}
	Edward Caruther Little, Esq., Field Place, Stroud.	} Mill owners
	Joseph Painter, miller, South Cerney. Tenant, Upper Mill.	}
Defendants	Henry Howell, gent., South Cerney.
	Isaac Beak Howell, brewer, South Cerney
	William Matthew Plummer, farmer, Siddington.

Before the court opened, H.Howell and I.B.Howell had settled out of court and paid the plaintiff damages. So this case was tried against one defendant, W.M.Plummer.

The Mill in question is a water, corn and grist Mill called Upper Mill in South Cerney. - The defendants were owners of riparian land higher up the river.

The plaintiffs claimed that since 1892 the River Churn's flow had been interrupted which hindered their work. They claim a prescriptive right to the flow of the river and claim from the defendant £10 (which was the sum paid by the other two defendants out of court).

In times past the defendants had paid what was improperly called a 'water rent' to the miller, until 1891 when they stopped and this was looked upon as a challenge of the Miller's rights. J.Painter had occupied the Mill from 1891; previously he occupied Cerney Wick Mill. The date on the mill was more than 100 years old.

He worked the mill all night if there was water, but otherwise he began at 6 a.m. and went on till 6 or 7 p.m. The farmers usually irrigated at night. The mill pond had enough water for two hours' work after which he had to rely on the stream. His work was grinding for dealers who sold meal. Apart from lack of water the mill had not been stopped more than ten times in 1894, and this was when he ran out of corn. The mill pond was repaired in 1891 when he took over.

Generally the worst month for lack of water was May. Arthur Legg worked for the miller and many times had to go up stream and lift the hatches when the river was dry. Henry Legg, miller to Mr Snell who owned the mill 300 yards below Upper Mill, was called to give corroborative evidence.

The Miller claimed ordinary rights. - Every riparian owner bordering a stream has the right of uninterrupted flow past his land and to take water for domestic purposes - he is also allowed water for extraordinary purposes, but this must not be allowed to interfere with the flow for the next man. If two or three people were collectively causing interrupted flow they could be restrained as causing a nuisance, although singly they were not liable.

Irrigation now went on nearly all the year round. Hatches in the river were used by owners on both sides of the river. Mr Plummer has held his farm for thirty years; it consists of 43 acres of meadow. The system being a spring "Wetting" after the first feed and a winter "wetting" after the hay crop. He irrigated the meadows called Great Meadow and Drove Meadow. Since 1890 they have only been used for pasturage and never mown, and therefore he said he never irrigated in the Spring. By his system of irrigation, when certain let-dry hatches were drawn the water taken from the river was returned to the river if the hatches were used properly.

The lower 10 acres in Great Meadow were irrigated by the river, the rest was higher and could only be irrigated by using let-dry hatches, or else the water passed to Mr Brain's land and then back to the river. There was also catchment water which came over his land irrigating Drove Meadow and ultimately went into the Churn, if the ditch at Black Pitch was in good condition. Mr Jefferies was Mr Plummer's 'drowner' who regulated the hatches.

Winter wetting lasted from November to March off and on; one fortnight off and one fortnight on, often day and night. The farmer claims that he has the same right to irrigate his land as the miller to turn his wheel. The farm was two miles above the mill.

Mr Painter states that the 1894 Spring was very dry and in May he often found Mr Plummer's hatches down; the water going over his land, part went under the railway and to the canal and two thirds went into the Shire ditch and thence to the Thames.

Judgement (14th December 1895)

Farmers' irrigation is an extraordinary right. The miller's is also an extraordinary right as he impounds a volume of water to work his mill.

The plaintiff's case is based on a Common Law right alleging that it is unreasonable to use water for irrigation interrupting the flow of the river. Two of the defendants had admitted this. He had not considered this case as one of nuisance by three people, but only of a single person. The Judge considered that the irrigation is unreasonable owing to the fact that catchment water is negligable and that two thirds of the water was not returned to the river.

He gave judgement in favour of the plaintiff - costs the same as for the other two defendants which amounted to the unpaid water rent.