New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-02-27
WAITER AND IFS COST.
HOW THE QUESTION OF SUPPLY FOR
BROOKLYN IS VIEWED.

WHAT PEOPLE COMPETE Mt TO EMPRESS oplNlo>S
or THE SUBJECT HAVE TO SAY ABOUT
METHODS OF OBTAINING 1.-THE POINT or
MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP or LEASED
SUPPLY DIsCUsSED-LONG GLANDS
NATURAL SOURCES. SHOULD BROOK
LyN AND NElGnEORING CITIES
JOIN IN PAYING THE BILL
FOR GREAT SUPPLY.
The need for increasing the water supply OF
Rrool;lvn coupled with the demands which New
York CITY Brooklyn. Jersey City and nearby
towns will make upon water sources III 'hr
ruture has brought prominently To pubic notice
I'm BROOKLYN two questions-One an enS!hesriho
problem and me other a problem or muhclpa'
business These questions are, respectFelE 10
what source shall Brooklyn go for an increase
OF supply in the near future? And would IL De
advisable for Brooklyn to discard munclpai
ownership Of waterworks for contracts WIN
private corporations? Necessarily, host OF
minor questions tread on the heels OF those pre-
sented but these two are predominant. one
has n bearing especially adequate provision
for the maintenance Of public health and safety;
the other refers more particularly TO the puphc
treasury Bound up with both is the great
query: Should Brooklyn consider definitely the
nrospect of combining in the future with
neighboring cities could she 50 order her works
that the work of joining with other cities of
Greater New-York and the neighborhood to Sc
cure an adequate water supply be accom-
plished with the least possible loss hy the
change?
Alfred T. White, then Commissioner OF the
City Works. was authorized to make complete
investigation Of the question OF Brooklyns water
supply Just before his term of office expired,
on the last day OF January. 1896 Mr.. White filed
comprehensive and exhaustive statements, CIV
ing the result Of the inquiries made by en-
gineers. and accompanied by his own review OF
the subject The investigation had been con-
fined 10 sources capable of yielding 100. 100000
gallons day. The Long Island watershed was
assigned to j. NJ. de Varona. engineer of water
supply: William Worthen. the well-known con-
sulting engineer reported on a supply from the
head waters Of the Housatonic River. and from
the Ramapo
Mr. Worthen estimated the cost OF the Housa-
tonic plan at slS.3s2. 900. and OF the Rsmapo plan
at s14 100000 Mr.. De Varona's estimate for
supply from Long Island was $24,5o0.0oo. NJ.
White urged in his report that ths cost Of the
Ramapo and Housatonic schemes might be
brought up to the actual cost of the Long Island
high. because there are uncertainties connected
with the appropriation Of water which might be
claimed by other States because Of the difficult
ties OF crossing rivers. and because the Long
Island plan Is more susceptible Of development
than the others needs increase. and the pump
Ing expenses would be closely related to deman nd.
In addition. Mr. White mentioned the Delaware
River at Port Jervis and suggested that a sup
ply OF 1000 000 900 gallons day could be drawn
from this source for the great metropolitan dis
,rct Also. he discussed certain proposals. made
by private corporations. for water to be fur
nishcd by contract with the city He objected TO
plans that would take watcrworks from munic-
ipal ownership and control. saying:
The experience OF London is sufficient
ing against the folly of allowing the possession
OF the main sources Of a citys water supply TO
pass into private hands and It is plain to need
argument that cities or States should control
their sources Of water supply not indirectly. by
contract for few years. but directly by owner
ship for all time
Immediately after the filing OF the reports and
OF the review by Mr.. White. a Brooklyn news
paper. which had been anxiously asking for the
matter then filed, obtained II. and published the
reports and the review. with long editorial
whose critical tone and fault-fndngs hid the
subject Of water supply in a cloud Of objections.
Mr.. White shortly afterward talked to Tribune
reporter. and explained what technical in
the reports OF the engineers. and added comment
TO that which he had made officially. Mr.. Whites
views were published in The Tribune. as. later
were facts and theories obtained from Mr.. De
Varona. relating especially to the Port Jervs
scheme.
This was followed the part Of the local
newspaper by the publication of more long edi-
nria rfen hos ipkl ed uith in
which it was asserted that the city OF Brooklyn
could buy water Of others more cheaply than 1t
could provide II for itself and that the greatest
cities Of the world secure or are moving 20 secure
their water supplies through private corpora
tons.
This the burden OF the editorial song.
Without coming to any other definite idea It was
affirmed as the opinion Of many people that
Brooklyn would well sell her own water plant
ut its appraised cost to private corporations;
that ''the manifest thing to do is to see where
good water can be contracted for with those who
have It to SELL
In editorial 1t was said 'if'' II costs
Brooklyn sos for every 100000 gallons and New
York $3.50. and If other cities get good water from
private parties for SIS or $50 for every 900 900
gallons. the luxury Of municipal ownership Is
too dearly bought when it has to be paid for by
the taxes on the property Of the people" IN an
editorial subsequently published it definitely
asserted that it does cost Brooklyn SO for every
million gallons obtained from the island. AS
matter Of fact II costs Brooklyn only $50 for
million baons Of water. including distribution
There were in the criticisms referred to a num-
Der OF picturesque criticisms OF men and things
connected with the Brooklyn water supply. But
the warmth with which 1t was urged that Brook
Ign should decker with private corporations for
water-because. forsooth the greatest cities Of
the world secure are moving to secure their
water supplies through private corporations
led. naturally. to the supposition that some per-
son persons. individually or as a corporation
might be benefited by the excitement over a So