It is a saga which seems to be almost as old and murky as the Broads themselves.
Now, after well over a decade of complex wrangling, a couple from Catfield have won their mammoth legal case against the Environment Agency over the removal of water from their land on the edge of the Norfolk waterways.
Experts say the verdict could have far reaching implications for agriculture in the area and the types of crops that can be grown there.
Tim and Geli Harris, who own Catfield Fen, near Stalham, have been campaigning since 2008 for the agency to stop granting 'water abstraction licences' from the surrounding wetland.
They argue that the process - mainly carried out by farmers to irrigate their crops - was drying out their fen and damaging its habitats.
The case has dragged on for years, with the couple - who are farmers themselves - spending £1m on legal challenges.
It finally came down to an argument in the High Court over whether key European nature conservation laws remain enforceable, despite the UK having left the EU - and whether the agency should have regard to them when granting licences.
The couple argued that they should, and in a ruling issued on Tuesday, September 6, the court agreed, saying that EU rules still apply to UK public authorities, if those rules had been recognised by a court as being enforceable prior to Brexit.
Mr Harris said: "My wife and I are delighted that the judge has found in our favour.
"It's been 14 years. And there is an urgency when you're dealing with wetlands - they can't wait.
"We're particularly pleased that there must now be urgent action done by the Environment Agency to prevent damage from water abstraction to the whole of the Broads special area of conservation."
Asked why they had committed so much money to the cause - more than £1m - Mr Harris said: "My wife and I have been very lucky in life, but we feel that although we are the legal freeholder of our fen, we're moral leaseholders - so we have a duty to preserve it for future generations.
"That's what we've been trying to do - that's what the case is, it's as simple as that really."
Mr and Mrs Harris’ initial campaign over the issue of water abstraction culminated in a three-week public inquiry in 2016.
That inquiry concluded that “continued abstraction cannot be shown beyond reasonable doubt not to adversely affect the integrity of the site”, and set the tone for a review of abstraction licences.
In 2021, the agency issued its findings and proposals from an investigation into sustainable abstraction in the Ant valley - in which the fen lies - which identified 240 abstraction licences in the area.
But that investigation was limited to just three sites of special scientific interest (SSSI) within the Broads and the couple argued that the wider area around Catfield Fen should be looked at.
After the agency refused to broaden the scope of the investigation, the couple took the case to judicial review, which found that a further range of sites should be looked at.
An Environment Agency spokeswoman said: “As a result of the judgment in this case we will now look at how we can expand our work to cover further protected sites”.
She said the agency would do this while recognising that it faces “resource constraints”.
She added that the agency had so far informed 20 different licence holders in the Ant valley that their licences must be reduced, constrained or revoked in their entirety.
The agency declined to say how much money it had spent on the case, but costs could have run into the hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Farmers argue that reducing abstraction would harm their ability to grow food such as potatoes, a high-value crop farmed on dry land close to the Broads and irrigated using water from it.
The Harrises argue that the land near the Broads should instead be used for less water-hungry crops.
Kelly Hewson-Fisher, national water resources specialist at the National Farmer's Union, said: “Farm businesses are already taking practical steps to maximise water efficiency on farms, such as rainwater collection and harvesting and developing on-farm reservoirs.
“But the challenge of securing water for food can’t just be solved at the farm level. That’s why the agricultural sector is working with Water Resources East on a long-term strategic plan for water resources that aims to meet the needs of agriculture, the environment and the public."
Judges usually refuse permission for an appeal of a judicial review - meaning that the decision is unlikely to be overturned. The agency refused to confirm whether they would be appealing or not.
The 14-year fenland saga
2008 - The Harrises first become concerned water abstraction is damaging the fen; they raise it with the Environment Agency (EA) and Natural England (NE)
2011 - NE and the Harrises present evidence demonstrating "a long term trend of drying“
2013 - Wetland experts call for immediate moratorium on abstraction licenses because the fen may have passed “irreversible tipping point”
2014 - New research from the Harrises and the RSPB highlights increasing concern for the fen
2016 - Public inquiry concludes that abstraction was having a damaging impact
2021 - EA issues proposals relating to impact of 240 licences in the Ant valley - but the Harrises say the EA's investigation should not have been limited to just three sites of special scientific interest
2022 - The Harrises seek a judicial review into the EA's 2021 findings, with the High Court ruling in their favour
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here