Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-03-31
THE wATER-METER QUESTION.
Our Citizens Made TO Pay for What
They Don't Get.

To the Editor OF the Dispatch:
have carefully read the report or the
Superintendent OF the Water Works. as
published in your issue OF March l4th.
and would like. through the medium OF
your valuable paper, to call attention
TO some points In connection therewith
affecting the rights Of our citizens.
The Superintendent says many OK Our
citizens who for years have regularly
paid their water bills get but meagre
supply. and for hours each day GET none
at their fixtures" In regard TO regularly
having their water bills" the citizen mas
no recourse as. II he does not pay within
Ave days he Is assessed with an additionai
sum az a penalty. and II not pald IN ten
DAYS the water Is shut of from the prem
lses. IL the water supply had pseh iut
nished by a company instead OF py tne
city the people would have had TINS
whole matter rectifed long ago, either
through the courts or by n withdrawal
OF the privileges Of the company for non.
performance of its contract; and 1 hoid
that the city, in its corporate capacity.
ought not TO do that which II would not
tolerate II a company had the privilege
OF supplying water TO It's citizens.
Two wears ago lived on Leigh street
between Eighth and Ninth, and although
I had to pay fun bills no water could De
had In my bathroom and closet Qocatea
on the second foor) except at night. ana
when / gave up the house and announcer
tenant came In the owner had TO nave
tank erected capable OF holding go or
soo gallons OF water, (Which could only
no allied during the night, when. the
measure being increased. the water could
r,se in the tank and afford supply for
tha naxt day. Thus was the owner or the
nremisss forced 10 incur an expense OF
between $50 and SIS in order to rent
out his house through the neglect or
the Council to DO its duty In this matter
by either laying larger mains on that
norton OF Leigh street or by putting IN
meters throughout the city. Nhlie HVihg
at the above mentioned residence l ASKED
nv next-door neighber, who had the year
before nut T., --Atar on his connection.
what the difference in cost was, ana ne
told me that before the meter was put
In his bill was s24 per annum, he having
some extra fixtures, but that since ~
was nut in he had only to pay sl2 per
annum. and his family had not been
yasteful In the use of water either De-
fore or after the meter was put In. 80
we see that by the meter system me cost
Of water would not be more than half
what II is now, wastage would be STOP
ped and all sections OF the city would
have an abundant supply
The Superintendent further on In his
report SAYS: 1T has been urged against
the meter system that By their general
Introduction our revenue would be much
reduced. land the city cannot afford 70
lose this revenue.S This, no doubt, Is the
ceeFcypa1 hv councilman for
posing the recommendation OF the Super
ntendent But IL IL a righteous reason
| hold that the water works should lie
self-sus staining, but not eXtortionate in
charge for water Let us see the record.
The receipts OF the Water Department
for the last fiscal year were sl39.034.l9.
while the total expenditures were $50 =
/ 1886. leaving net profit OF $sj. 45.5S.
or lagsly over 80 per cent. Now, sup
posing that the general Introduction OF
meters would reduce the revenues from
water one half We should then have
sGa5l7.oe as the receipts, from watch
deduct sie.55S.66, the expense OF operating
the works. and we have a net balance
OF sl6.s7s.D with which to make repairs.
extensions. &c. or about 30 per cent
pro1t. am satisfied that any private
company would be glad to have the no.
nopoly al such a figure. At any rate, II
the necessities Of the city require more
money. ard no other subjects for taxation
can be found. let the Council raise the
rate ten cents on the hundred. for II is
bound TO come anyhow on account OF the
building of the City Hail. and the sooner
it is done the better for the city.
II stilI maintain" says the Superln-
tendent, that by measurement is the
only equitable method OF charging FOX
water. No equitable rate for fixtures
can ever be fixed" This Is as true as
| Gospel Take my residence, for example
| There Is hydrant In the yard, a fauce,
and sink in the kitchen. two closets, and
| bathroom on the back porch. The
| hydrant in the yard Is rarely, 4, evei
used. because nobody IL going outdoors
| TO draw water when II can be gotten &c
much more readily either from the inHid,
| hydrant or the upstairs bathroom; but
| am charged $50 per annum for II, al
| the same. Then, in the case OF the oath
room-whlch can only be used fou
months In the year, am charged 49,
| per annum. because | can't cut off tn
water from the bath-tub without cuttlnI
| 1t of from the closet. Thus I am com
| PEELED 10 pay the city $3.50 annually 10
water that I don't use. IL a meter Wa
on the premises my bill would not b
| over -. VI SiJ PCT DIS IL l
now. and yet I would not use a drop les
| than at present
In stating my case I am confident tina
am but stating the case OF thousand
who have suffered this injustice at tn
| hands, OF the Council-not at the hand
Of officials at the Water Department, be
cause they are bound to execute IN
ordinance as passed by the Council.
And now. having shown that the meter
system can be adopted and still make
profit Of at least 80 per cent. what Is tn
remedy. II the Council should still perss
In Its refusal to hearken to the urgen
solicitations Of our excellent Superln
tendent. and at the same time do justic
to our long over-taxed and patiently-en
during people? Well, there Is one. II tn
people choose to use it-viz.: Vote for n
man for either branch Of the Council
the next municipal election who VIII no
pledge himself before election to advoca.
and vote for putting In. meters tnro9f"
out the city. q. H. ."
{ March q IN