The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1881-01-28
The Water supply.

in his matter Is The experience OF every
cry which does not use waier-me,ers. The
Graphic complained only few days ago OIL
ihe peoule OF New York for wasting so
much water, and declared that II bad De-
come necessary TO resort to meters a. q
means Of preventing such uaiust''iao'e eA'
trStagancc or carelessness.
Bai the arguments against making people
pas for water In proportion TO the quantity
U.s.. have almost always and almost every
where been held 10 outweigh those IN FAVOR
OF sach change. The public health Is Tue
frs: thing TO be considered; and IL wouio
be nd policy 10 tempt people to Oe less
clc.gly than they now are, or 10 cause them
70 no too little water, especially IN their
wA,er.closets.
Something, however, must be done. The
Rosiou Herald saws that it seems to be de-
nsa>tratcd beyond dispute that The Increase
in Inc use OF water goes on at much faster
rate than the increase in supply, no matter
how liberal The latter may be. We IN h'cn-
naod have found this 10 be true, win q
Vengeance. Tue quantity Of water wasted
her. is almost incredible. III 1t takes SIN
nnllons Of gallons daily to supply Rich
mo.d. which has a population OF only
seyrp,y thousand, il must require hundred
millions OF gallons daily TO supply New
York with her population OF over million.
Rad what the Boston Her0id SAYS Of the
vase in that city, and see how true II Is o.
u:
&C. Eut tie increase in use is mainly attfl-
bvtasle TO the fact That when Watcr-uScfS
ar. convinced that the supply is practically
unlimited. they are exceedingly careless III
thl gay in which they employ 1t. III IS 'i-
loved TO run 10 waste; where tumDieT-
fu would reasonably suffice bucReliuI
j. dawn: while water-fNtures that allow
OF unlimited leakage ale suffered TO 90
without repair"
TIE Herdd adds:
OF course, if this Indifference IS to con-
ti,ie, 40 supply of water that the city can
prss,by control will be equal 10 the de.
m9nd. Ii, therefore, becomes question OF
inheritance, if IL is not better for the city
todcyise some means OF checking THIS waste
rather than spending its money in The SEEM
jncy useless woIk OF providing an addi-
iior I supply"
l. Boston, as in Richmond. tie charges
to- water are chased IN large measure
VI. the value OF property" The HerdId
do. not propose 10 change the practice In
thi, respect nor is it willing to restrict un-
ne. ssaliIy the use Of water, nor to make
cor. lmers pay in proportion to The quanti'
IL used as indicated by the meter. This
las, proposition has been discussed in many
cites, and numerous, articles on both sides
OF nc question have appeared in the col
upJr. of the public journals. But it was re-
served for the Boston Heraid TO strike the
golden mean between those who desire con-
suuers to pay in proportion TO the quantity
of water used and those who desire every
family TO waste as much water as it chooses.
And mere is the Herdtd'S compromise:
=, But il has been suggested, and the sug'
eesliou seems a good one, that the meter
sysicm might be used, not as check upon
legitimate use, but as check upon waste.
To eypIain: the same charges that are now
made could be still continued, these being
based i'm a large measure upon the value OF
property: but they would presnpp0se,
which they do not now, certain amount
OF use. In consideration Of our numerous
tepement-bOuses il might be well TO add to
hi. a certain per capita allowance for SAM
tary reasons. But, having figured ont
what the rate payment ard The number
OF the household would justify in
the way OF use, this should be
set rs the maximum OF use III The
house, without additional payment. Under
such conditions a meter could determine
the amount OF waste, and 1t would then be
clearly for the interest OF the householder TO
keep within the limit that the city accorded
TO hin, and hence TO make whatever repairs
in his pipes were needed TO prevent an ADJ
solu,a waste. In other words, while there
would be no object IN being parsmonious
In The use Of water, there would be very
practical reason for avoiding waste. The
CITY would OF course, have TO furnish lis
meters, as the Gas companies now do. III Is
believed bv those who have looked into this
mat,ey that this could be done at relatively
small expense, and that, while our citizens
wclld then get all the benefits they now 90
the city government might be saved Tor
some wears to come the expense of adding
10 our already large water supply
Misery loves company. Richmond is no
worse of than the wealthy and much more
po2ulous city OF Boston. Ii there were no
waste of water here, there would never be
" ater-iamine, even il only six millions of
carons/ per diem could be sent up.to the
reservoirs. When consumers have TO de-
pend on wells and springs for their supply,
they do not use 1--WE mean all the water
takers in this cily-about 100000 one mil
/ ion Of gallons 4 day, even this small ~
quantity being daily supply of 80 gallons
for each family Of five persons, or allowing
thai half the water is used by factories, 70
gallons to each such family. The HeralPS
proposition is worthy OF consideration.
Each family can be allowed to use twice as
mueh water as il needs before paying any
more than II now pays, and still there viii
be IN abundance Of water supplied by the
reservoirs. Much more water Is needed on
some days than on others but as the charge
would be for what was used IN month, the
average consumption would not be above
what was allowed. Persons who have not
eutered into calculations on the subject
have no idea how the consumers waste
water. Hydrants are left running night
and DAY, and water enough Is thus wasted
by careless takers 10 supply abundaDtiy all
the takers in the city even when water is
as scarce as IL was last week. The Croton
river OF New York would not suffice 10
supply Richmond few years hence IL her
people continue thus 10 waste water. Two
s0-inch pipes leading into the city, great as