ࡱ> &(%!` 2bjbj\\ *>>2          $B h 1]]]1F] ]  `' WsR\0p  p p   S11]]]] Public submissions to water market rules issue paper by D W Sehestedt 8th May 2008. 4.2 Constraints on water exports. I refer to attach to PDF Talking Water Termination Charges. This appears to me to be a termination fee. If I sell water outside the operators sphere I am being asked to terminate the equivalent number of DE. It does not give me the opportunity to hold on to the DE and pay an annual access fee. This can only have the effect of deterring irrigators from selling their water. 4.4 Security of future payment of fees. I do not think that operators should have any security rights over irrigators who wished to maintain their DE without water entitlements. We live in a commercial world and the operators should be required to act like everyone else. If the irrigator becomes insolvent the property would be sold and the operator should be required to stand in line with the rest of the creditors. After all operators are a business like everyone else in the community and I can see no reason why they should be treated differently. If any irrigator becomes insolvent and the property is sold it is more than likely that the person buying the property will wished to irrigator. The operator now has the opportunity to recover underpaid accounts before resuming supplies. 5.5 terms and conditions of transformation and or trade. It appears to me that the operators have the power to change the terms of trade without consultation with the member irrigators. I refer to the attached PDF. It should be clearly spelt out so that irrigators know before they sell their water entitlements what the cost of terminating the associated DE will be. In a recent discussion with my operator I was given a figure of 12 times the access fee. It now turned out to be 32 times or thereabouts the access fee. This does not give the irrigator any incentive for transformation or trade. It now turns out that a shadow access fee is being applied. This I am told is all legal and above board however it does little for the irrigator wishing to trade water as there is no certainty in ongoing fees imposed on DE. And furthermore I cannot see why and access fee should be 2.5 times higher for someone wishing to trade their water. I am being discriminated against if I wished to sell my water and terminate the attached DE. GIU2h&h&5CJH* h&5CJ8FTUxyz{ ! " #    T U V /012$a$2(/ =!"#$% 8@8 Normal_HmH sH tH DAD Default Paragraph FontVi@V  Table Normal :V 44 la (k@(No List 2 8FTUxyz{!"#TUV/ 0 1 4 0000000000000000000000002 2 2 vU":4 E4 9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace N<E4 Ue$! - 4 3333334 ,J&1 4 @(=2 p@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial"qh+&+&__!24d. . 2HX ?,J27Public submissions to water market rules issue paper by D W Sehestedt sara starkOh+'0 (4 T ` lx8Public submissions to water market rules issue paper byD W Sehestedt Normal.dot sara stark2Microsoft Office Word@0@-V@-V_՜.+,0  hp|   . d 8Public submissions to water market rules issue paper by Title  !"#$'Root Entry F` W)1Table WordDocument*SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q