2008/9/19 Adrian Stott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > "Bob Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> ... there is no justification for a >>> usage-based charge (toll). Except in dry periods where back-pumping >>> is required, when I would support a charge for each time you fill a >>> (key) lock on the route concerned. >> >>Is that logical? Don't all the boats in the upper pound benefit from >>the back-pumping? Shouldn't they all be charged for the benefit they >>receive? > > No. Except for evaporation and leaks, which the non-pumped fixed-cost > water supply should be able to handle, the only water leaving the > summit is by lockage. The annual charge should cover the non-pumped > supply. Since the boats on the summit pound which don't use the locks > aren't contributing to lockage, why should they pay anything more?
Because they benefit from it? Are you being deliberately awkward in asking for this point to be made again? It is written in the paragraph you have quoted. -- Bob
