"Bob Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >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.
You seem to have overlooked the points I made. To recap: - Water supply from feeders, reservoirs, etc. is effectively a fixed cost. Water supplied by backpumping is a variable cost - Backpumping is needed only when locks are used in dry periods - Boats on a summit that don't use locks are floating in water that is supplied as part of a fixed cost, even during dry times, so there is no justification for charging them for backpumping - Boats using locks on dry routes are using lockage water that is supplied by backpumping, so there is justification for charging them a locking toll. In summary, boats floating in, but not locking in or out of, a summit are not benefiting from backpumping, so they should not be charged for it. Clear now? Adrian . Adrian Stott 07956-299966
