It's not obvious to me that the dredging liability was overlooked on the grant of the agreement. Quite possibly it was overlooked - but equally possible, some estimate of the liability was made and the charge reflected it - and has since been RPId. It would have been a sensible way of doing it to avoid nightmare provisions over who pays for what over the next 99 years. As David Mack pointed out, the marginal costs of dredging due to BW could be more than the average costs. And over the next 99 years, who would be bold enough to say that all circumstances could be fully anticipated. You would have fun over future taxes such as VAT too. And was the canal silted up a bit before the grant - should BW be liable Whether it was under or over estimated back in the 1950s is now lost in the mists of time. Good or bad, the deal is done. I am not supporting either team; my interest is in clarifying the position. Your assertion was CRT could withdraw its services and the Court could bless that decision if it thought it reasonable; this was incorrect. Equally, there are now suggestions that the original deal should have been better - based on little more than better is good. There needs to be some realism. BW wanted clean, unsilted (but untreated water). They were hardly going to agree to pay the full price for clean water (an idle eg might be as at Hurlestone) and pay a further sum for the nasty water to be made clean. Whether in the original deal BW were then squeezed until the pips squeak is now beyond us, realistically. We don't even know whether a chunky premium was paid at the grant or not. Therefore to say the deal should have been better - and that all circumstances over the next 99 years should have been fully anticipated and covered is rather unreasonable. Agreed. But that next chance is 2055 and not sooner, as some been suggesting. It would be possible to agree a surrender and renewal with BW, but it is not going to give away any favourable bits it currently enjoys for nothing. In 2055 it won't (I forecast!) be a free for all any more than it was in 1962. The statutory undertakers have legislative powers such a compulsory purchase and telling BW that unless it agrees to pay a fantastic sum, the water will be cut off will simply not wash. The original deal was arranged between me and myself inasmuch as both parties were governmental - having been nationalised. The poor soul acting for the waterways team (Ministry of Transport) could expect some pressure from on high not to prevent the good Bristolians from having their water. What he didn't anticipate (or, at least could not have known) was that the water supply would be privatised and the navigation transformed into a charity. More probably (then) was that if this deal went badly wrong in the next 99 years, his boss would have a word with my boss, and we would start again.
