The engineering of the Limehouse Cut was affected by political disputes upstream.
The Lee had multiple uses.
 It was a highway for traders.
 It supplied London with drinking water.
 It powered grain mills.
 It was a sewer for towns and factories.
 There was no Conservancy Board to manage these clashing interests, just the trustees responsible for its navigation.

The navigation of the River Lee was governed by a board of 65–120 unpaid trustees, typically country magistrates.
 Of the few trustees who used to turn up to meetings, only one was a trader who owned barges.
 The most influential was James Gascoyne-Cecil, 2nd Marquess of Salisbury, who became chairman in 1851.
 A powerful nobleman with a deep knowledge of parliamentary procedure, his biographer has described him as an eighteenth century aristocrat in a nineteenth century world.

Rendel's estimate for his scheme was £230,000—about £30 million today—yet the Trust's revemue was small.
 However, John Marchant, clerk to the trustees, had hit on the idea of borrowing the capital and paying off the loans by selling more water to the London water companies.
 This was essential to the scheme's success, Hertford's MP William Cowper told Parliament.

The scheme was controversial.
 It was opposed by many river traders who complained the benefits were not worth the money and the Trust would incur large debts: meaning higher tolls.
 Its promoters were certain it would pay for itself.
 At an unusually large meeting of the Trust at Ware, the scheme was carried by 27–25 votes.
 A Bill was put before Parliament to authorise it and, despite opposition from radical politician John Bright—who suspected an ulterior motive—became law on 1 August 1850.

The pessimists proved correct.
 While the London water companies were interested in buying the water, and had said so, they had not tied themselves to a price; and soon showed who had the stronger bargaining power.
 First, the New River [Water] Company struck a deal with the town of Hertford to get water from the pure and copious River Mimram—an upstream tributary, outside the Lee Trust's jurisdiction.
 Then they and the East London Waterworks applied for Acts of Parliament of their own, by which they would get the River Lee's water.
There was litigation; the Trust ran into cashflow problem; and the eventual compromise was that the Companies got the whole of the River Lee's water—apart from that required for navigation—for comparatively small amounts.

The upshot was that though there were valuable improvements, the Trust incurred a large debt without any obvious means to pay it off.
 Though they had increased the tolls (sometimes steeply), they ran out of funds.
 Sacrifices had to be made, and were made on the Limehouse Cut.
The engineering of the Limehouse Cut was affected by political disputes upstream. The Lee had multiple uses.  It was a highway for traders.  It supplied London with drinking water.  It powered grain mills.  It was a sewer for towns and factories.  There was no Conservancy Board to manage these clashing interests, just the trustees responsible for its navigation.
The navigation of the River Lee was governed by a board of 65–120 unpaid trustees, typically country magistrates.  Of the few trustees who used to turn up to meetings, only one was a trader who owned barges.  The most influential was James Gascoyne-Cecil, 2nd Marquess of Salisbury, who became chairman in 1851.  A powerful nobleman with a deep knowledge of parliamentary procedure, his biographer has described him as an eighteenth century aristocrat in a nineteenth century world.
Rendel's estimate for his scheme was £230,000—about £30 million today—yet the Trust's revemue was small.  However, John Marchant, clerk to the trustees, had hit on the idea of borrowing the capital and paying off the loans by selling more water to the London water companies.  This was essential to the scheme's success, Hertford's MP William Cowper told Parliament.
The scheme was controversial.  It was opposed by many river traders who complained the benefits were not worth the money and the Trust would incur large debts: meaning higher tolls.  Its promoters were certain it would pay for itself.  At an unusually large meeting of the Trust at Ware, the scheme was carried by 27–25 votes.  A Bill was put before Parliament to authorise it and, despite opposition from radical politician John Bright—who suspected an ulterior motive—became law on 1 August 1850.
The pessimists proved correct.  While the London water companies were interested in buying the water, and had said so, they had not tied themselves to a price; and soon showed who had the stronger bargaining power.  First, the New River [Water] Company struck a deal with the town of Hertford to get water from the pure and copious River Mimram—an upstream tributary, outside the Lee Trust's jurisdiction.  Then they and the East London Waterworks applied for Acts of Parliament of their own, by which they would get the River Lee's water. There was litigation; the Trust ran into cashflow problem; and the eventual compromise was that the Companies got the whole of the River Lee's water—apart from that required for navigation—for comparatively small amounts.
The upshot was that though there were valuable improvements, the Trust incurred a large debt without any obvious means to pay it off.  Though they had increased the tolls (sometimes steeply), they ran out of funds.  Sacrifices had to be made, and were made on the Limehouse Cut.
Limehouse Cut