Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1893-07-13
THURSDAY.........JULY 10. 1893
Richmond md Her Water


The watcr-meter IS not yet popular here.
The people believe that there is only o
scare" in the lamentation heard that
many elevated localities Of the city are
altogether without water during the day
time. or that if the complaint Is we'll
founded IN some instances Richmond
should buy new pumps and lay new mans
TO make the supply good.
To inform the people as TO these mat
tiers there must be "a campaign Of educa-
ton " here. II must be shown thai there IS
n real scarcity IN the supply and that our
financial situation will not permit US at
this tImo 10 make any large issues Of new
bonds.
when our people are thoroughly con-
vinccl that the city Is put IN peril by
scarcity Of water and that 1t hasn't the
money % spend for new water works then,
and not tn then, Will thoy consent 70
adopt Watcr-motcrs. Hence we are not
surprised at the failure Of the motion
maio m the Board Of Aldermen night be-
fore last % take 1920 from tho not-now-
needed Shockoc- Creek fund and put II TO
the credit Of the Water Works Department
Tor thv purchase % water-meters. IL was
Il fno opportunity 90 get a sum OF money
g. make start iu an experimental way at
least. but by q largo majority tho motion
Wa, "s.do-tracked that is % say, was
referred 10 the Committee on Finance.
The community looks to the Committee
on Eetreuchment and Reform TO e1Dound
.he financial doctrines which should guide
thismuu cipalIty for the next year or two.
Ne should particularly Ike 10 see II deal
with tho water Question. Eetrenchment
and reform would seem to be badly needed
where 1t Is possible for community to
demand lf3 gallons Of water per day for
each If it, nlabltants-thgt 10 10 say
where the water wasted is four or five times
the quantity actually used
Our choice Is between water-meters and
another great expenditure It money for
pumps 20 be PLAIN, our choice IS between
recurring each householder to be economi-
cal N the use of water or raising the rate
Of taxation hore.
By tho wav. II seems that there Is room
faradiAerencs Of opinion amongaldermen
Is 90 what our wAter-works systOm has
cost Us.
TUESDAY night one member Of the board
was of the opinion that the cost was about
$1,000. 900: another was Of the opinion that
the cost was nearer s 100000. We should
Ike 10 see an exact statement, and 1t
should include tho cost OF the dam half
way across James river, the Old and new
pump.houses, the old and new reservoirs,
the steam-pumps the cost Of laying mans,
Ac.-iudeed, cvery cent of money that has
been spent on the water-works plant
which has not already been taxed IN cost
on tho watcr-taker.
In june. 1sS2. a statement was published
that the works had cost up 10 that time
about - $40. 900. and not included therein
were appropriations already made for tho
new pump-works, &c, Of $3.50, 600 Against
this sum total was an Offset Of Sl,722000
for receipts from water takers. How the IN
forest charge on tho bonds issued to build
the works was disposed of we do not know.
Perhaps the use Of the water at the are
hydrants. in the markets, public build
iugs, &c, was considered fair Offset for
Whatever interest the city was entitled 20
upon an elaborate statement Of the ac-
count.
However, there can be no doubt that
The City Water-W orks have proved to be
good investment. The question is how
10 supply elevated points here with water
at all hours. And the choice Is between
"meterinc the city," and buying new
pumps, laying new mains. &C., 6c.2