Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-08-10
Mr.. Truesdell Differs With His Col
leagues on Water Assessments.
PROPOSED BILL MORE EQUITABLE
Sends His Views to the President
in a Report.
D r WING EX AMPL z

Commissioner Truesdell today submitted
to the President his minority report upon
House bill 6S93. to regulate water main
assessments in the District of Columbia.
1t will be recalled, as stated in yester-
days Star that Commissioners Ross and
Powell recommended unfavorable executive
action on the bill. Commissioner Truesdelrs
report is as follows:
To the President:
I am unable to concur in the views and
recommendations contained in the report
Of my associates Of the board of Commits
sioners Of the District Of Columbia on II.
r. 6s93. ito regulate water main assess
ments In the District of Columbia" return
ed to you yesterday.
There is but one important question rails
ed by this bill, and that is the change in
the method or plan of assessing the cost
OF water mains on abutting property from
one and one-fourth cents per square foot
Of area to one dollar and twenty-five cents
per linear or front foot. AS to which of
these two systems is the most equitable
and desirable, there Is room for a difference
Of opinion.
The other question raised by the Com
missioners as to whether they would have
power under said bill to assess for cost of
fire plugs. and whether the power to erect
implication be revoked, arises in my judg-
ment from a misconception of both the
proposed and existing law. The power to
assess the expense of the erection of fire
plugs is included In the power to assess the
cost OF water mains, and no separate tax
or assessment is can be levied for fire
plugs. The ass essment under existing law
must be at the rate of one and one-fourth
cents per square foot, whether fire plugs
are erected or not. The law is found in
section g. chapter of an act of the third
legislative assembly, approved June %,
1873. which supersedes sections 2u5-.;-7 and
OF the Revised Statutes relating to the
District of Columbia, and is follows:
That hereafter, in order to defray the
expense of laying water mains and the
erection Of fire plugs. there be and is here
by levied special tax of one and one
quarter cents per square foot on every lot
and part of lot which binds in or touches
on any avenue street or alley in which
rain water pipe may hereafter be lain and
fire plug erected"
Section of the same act provides that
all moneys received on account of laying
water mains and the erection of fire plugs
under the preceding section shall be depos-
tied to the credit of the water fund and
under later law, in the United States
treasury. The power to lay water mains
and erect fire plugs, however, is not de-
rived from the act above mentioned, but
from the annual appropriation for the eX-
penses OF the government of the District
of Columbia, which, under head of water
department, reads as follows:
For fuel, repairs to boilers, machinery
and pumping stations, pipe distribution to
high and low service, including public hy-
drantS and fire plugs. and labor in repair
ing. replacing, raising and lowering mains
laying. new mains and connections and
erecting and repairing fire plugs and public
hydrants, $4,000"
The amount appropriated varies from
year to year, but the language otherwise is
always the samn.
1t thus appears that the fear expressed
by my colleagues that the bill under con-
s.deration would deprive the Commission
ers of the power of erecting fire plugs is
groundless, and that tn, power to assess
for fire plugs is wholly nominal and has no
effect upon the revenues OF the water de-
partment whatever. If taken out of the
existing law it would not reduce those
revenues penny, nor If added to the pend
ing bill would it increase them. The only
thing of Importance to be considered in
connection with the bill is. does il afford a
more equitable system of assessing the cost
OF laying water mains than that now pro-
vided by law?
Under the present system the cost of lay
ing a water main in front of two lots one
30 by 100 and the other ~ by 200. is the
same in each case. while the tax levied is
twice as much on one lot on the other.
And yet the water main gives no greater
benefit to one lot than to the other In
many cases this method of assessment
works even greater injustice. Some lots in
the suburbs, where greater depth is desira-
bic than in the city, have been laid off 800
feet or more in depth. while on the same
streets other lots are less than 100 feet in
depth. In some cases the owners of deep
lots have subdivided a shallow strip along
the front or have sold few feet off the
front previous TO the levying of a water
main assessment for the evident purpose
of eN2ding the tax. This has encouraged
the laying off of very shallow lots, both in
end out of the city, practice that should
be discouraged as much possible. The
average depth of lots. is about loo feet, and
District would be about the same under
either system, and the amount collected
would be ample 20 defray the cost Under
the system of assessing by the linear foot,
should deep lot be given another front
by the opening of a new street alley,
wherein water main should Toe laid, a new
tax would be levied on that front. BY op-
GRAFTON of the present law this tax is an
ticipated sometimes many years, that
the property holder is taxed for a water
main perhaps ten years before it is laid.
This is contrary to the law requiring the
tax to be equal and uniform.
This bill was reported upon to both houses
of Congress by the Commissioners and
every feature of the bill thoroughly con-
s!dered by the committee in charge of the
bill, and finally by conference commit
tee. The Senate committee in their re-
port say:
THE cost to the District is measured by
the length Of frontage against which the
main is laid and not by the superficial con-
tents of the lot. and it seems plain that the
measure OF charge 10 the lOt owner should
be based upon the same principle"
The contention that because more water
may be used On deep lot than on a shall
low ore a greater tax for a water main
should be levied on the deeper one, will not
stand investigation. The cost of the water
main is the same In either case while the
consumption of water is paid for by a
water rent which, under the law. the Com
missioners have power to make common
surate with the amount consumed The bill
under consideration provides, in my opinion
a more Uniform equitable and effective
method of assessment for water mains than
the presen. law, and 1 recommend favora-
BILE action thereon.