Morning journal and courier., 1891-11-17
THE QUESTION OF WATER.

Given to All the Daily Fapers-OtneT Business. !, Although the board of aldermen ad- journed last week, it adjourned principally for the purpose of hearing the report of the committee on water submitted and taking action thereon. Notwithstanding this fact, no decisive action was taken upon the matter last evening other than to still further continue the matter by the passage of a resolution to table the report of the committee for printing.
 . It was after 10 o'clock when the report of the water committee was finally brought before the board. After the clerk had read a portion of the report Alderman Avis moved that as the matter was one of considerable importance, and it was desir- able that the members of the board should look over and carefully consider the tables and figures contained therein, that the re- port be tabled for printing, and that the clerk have it printed and distributed to the members of the board within three days Alderman Chandler opposed any further delay in the matter, but the motion was put and carried by a vote of to 5.
 The Ol JUG COulHlGUCc3 WnlCA 1CC- ommends that contract for two years be made with the water company at the rate of S2O, ,O00 per year, and that the city at once take steps to secure the necessary suitable legislation to authorize and facili- tate the purchase by the city of all the property, assets and franchises of the water company, is as follows:
 THE WATER COMMITTEES REPORT. To the Honorable Court of Common Coun-
 cil:
 Your committee, to whom was assigned the duty of ascertaining and reporting the terms upon which the water company would supply the city with water after the expiration of the existing contract, beg leave to report that we attended to that duty and reported to your honorable body at the regular meeting in October, when the matter was referred back to us to ob- tain further information, which informa- tion, together with the recommendation of the committee we herewith submit.
 The terms upon which the water com pany base their proposition are obtained by taking the average price per hydrant paid by eighty-four cities ranging in popu- iation from s, 145 to 446, 507.
 Upon careful examination of the his tory of the water works of which this table is made up your committee find:
 1. Many of these cities are small and of recent growth, have works of very recent construction, are under their first contract for water supply, and depend largely upon the revenue from hydrant rental for an in come, the distribution of private consu- mers being matter of slow and uncertain growth In such cases the contracts are often made before the works are built, and the high price per hydrant is an induce fo oot fire.
 3. The Water company in making this table have failed to place in the list of eighty-four cities single city where no charge is made for water for municipal uses although there are number of such cities far less remote from New Haven than many of the small cities that have found place in their list.
 The average population of the cities named in this table is about 36,000, the population of New Haven being 133 per cent. larger, the distribution to private consumers consequently being much larger and the ability of the Water company to supply the city at lower rate much greater.
 (The committee then gives two tables separating the private from the public works
 In table No. 3 the water works are operated under private ownership. The total population of the forty-two cities in this list is 1,O2S, ,247, the average being 24, 4,342. The total number of hydrants is 9,769. The total amount paid for hydrant rental, $411 ,4S9; average per hydrant being $41. Compare this table with table 8, the works being all operated under pub lie ownership. Total population of forty two cities, 1,969,6S5; average. 46, 397. Total number of hydrants, 25,609. Total amount paid for hydrant rental, $670, ,294. Average per hydrant, $25.40. It will seem by this comparison that the total population of the forty-two cities where the ownership of water works is public is water works are operated under private ownership. It will also be seen that the cost for hydrant rental is 61 per cent more than per hydrant under private own | ership where the cities arc larger and the | distribution to private consumer core spondingly greater.
 Tho comparison further shows that the Water company as though to give as much responsibility as possible to the average population of their eighty-four cities, were | forced to the expedient of drawing on the larger cities where the works are public always avoiding of course where no charge l l6 ulthuC Ao1 WoCCl 1OI 1AuIlC1pkal uSCS " find this table therefore to be unfair anG misleading.
 The second table presented by the Wate, made up of forty-two New England cities thirty three of which are owned an6 operated by the city, town or borough which is it's most noticeable feature and chief merit, and all of them selected from the Water company's first table. Al that can be said for the table is that beine made up of larger cities generally, it makes a little better showing than the first, the average hydrant rental being $25.95. Il might be well to notice that the Water company calls attention to the fact tha | the Biddeford, Me-, company furnish wa ter to that city at $50 per hydrant for ter years (probably from the time of con struction of the works, '84-5,) but failed tt mention that at the end of that time thi. service would be free.
 | [The committee then submits table composed of all cities in New England hay ing a population of over 20, 900 inhabitant. and an average population of 60, ,643; aver age hydrant rental, $17.25.
 The committee add: This table req uire. no comment. The works are nearly all public, only three being operated unde, private ownership. Six of these cities art supplied free of charge for municipal uses l At the last meeting of your committed | for hearing on this question the water company submitted the following proposi | tion:
 | 'sTwenty dollars per hydrant and three | quarters of cent per 100 gallons for al other uses-by meter, and estimate al i uses to be metered that can be-" l This would make no material difference in favor of the city, and as is often tht case, an application for hydrant often has to be made to get water into stree for the use of the residents the accoun | would be constantly growing. We would not recommend the acceptance of thi proposition. Since the contract between l the city of New Haven and the Wate, company is about coming to close and the new contract, if one be made, vii seems to your committee proper to includ' in this report such information as the, have necessarily found in considering tn, matter of municipal supply. The ques tion has been asked whether the rates fo families in New Haven are excessive. In New Haven the water supply is easil, accessible, and has been brought into tn city at comparatively small coat; the con nections are favorable for easy excavatio, for the purpose of laying mains in tn streets, thus reducing the cost of distribu ton to minimum, and the people should have the benefits.
 The point was made by the Water com pany, before your committee, that wate costs more per capita in Hartford than il New Haven-in Hartford $3 and in Nev Haven $2. .65-but the president, MT. Daw son, also claimed that rates in Providence