The herald., 1897-02-20
RIVERSIDE
City Trustees Wrestling With the Watei
Question

City Trustees Wrestling With the Water
Question
RIVERSIDE, Feb. 19.-Today was
field day on the fixing of water rates in
Riverside valley. There was a large
attendance at the meeting of the city
trustees, and every one had chance to
talk, and many availed themselves Of
the opportunity. At times the discussion
was quite warm and personalities were
quite freely indulged in. The discussion
lasted all day, and an adjournment was
taken until tomorrow at p. m.
DR.. Jarvis was against the ordinance,
in that it increased the burden of water
tax upon a majority of the water users.
He claimed that the proposed rates
would be unequal. He accused the water
company of not keeping faith with the
committee of citizens. The rates were
now all the people could pay.
L. c. Russell said he was opposed to
the adoption of the new rates. If the
rates were increased, it would be impos-
sible for many orchardists in the valley
to pay them. and they would be driven to
the WALL Much land belonging to the
Riverside Water company had been sold
in the past a t good prices, and the 1ndebt-
edness had been increased from year to
year, instead of decreased. There was
no 6HCOuTdScIAtHl, Juo5lh6 iiOiii eAiN
past managem ent, for the people to in
crease the rates to wipe out the present
Indebtedness.
William Finch said the trustees had no
right to fix the water rates, because
members of the board OF trustees were
also members of the water company. 1t
was contrary to the constitution OF the
state.
Mr.. Boyd denied that the lands had
been sold for good prices. The company
actually owned more land today than
when the company was organized. The
company was prevented from selling the
lands because of the factious opposition
such as developed at this time. He said:
1--WE should not look 10 such men is Mr.
Finch to fix the water rates; he was not
stockholder, and was lodging his OBJ
ligation.''
Mr. Finch said he bought his land
with the water right and paid for it,
and he paid for the water he used. He
denied, with some warmth, that he was
lodging any obligation.
Mr.. Boyd said the water right had
been doubled in value since the organi-
Zation of the new water company. The
system had been improved and the vol
ume of water more than doubled.
DR.. Jarvis said he was not factious
in his opposition to the ordinance in its
present form. 1t was because it was
not equal in Its operations. Men who
used little water were compelled, by the
acre rate per annum, to pay as much
as the men who used much water. 1t was
unfair.
President Frost of the company said
the company was not here to discuss the
legal status of fixing rates. The trus-
tees attorney could inform them on
that point. Neither was the company
here to discuss the past sale of lands.
Any stockholder of the company had
the oportunity to investigate any of the
acts of the officers Of the company. There
was hardly any one who would dare as
sert that there had been any misappro-
priation of the proceeds of the sale of
lands The question was of placing the
company on business basis and keep
the system out of the hands of receiv-
err He. as an officer wanted to conduct
the business of the water company as
he would his own business, on business
basis. The company was in debt, and 1t
should place itself in a position to pay
its debts. 1t must do 1t, or the people
would lose control of their water system.
He did not think that the man who was
compelled to use $1,000 worth of water
should pay ten times as much of the ex-
penses of the company as the man who
used $1O0 worth. 1t usually cost the
company, in the way of construction, as
much to put water on the lands of the
man who used the lesser amount of wa
ter as it did to put water on the mans
land who used the greater amount.
MI Russell said the proposition
changed the basis of levying water rates
from by the inch to by the acre. He was
fearful that the water rights of the peo-
pie would be endangered by making the
change proposed.
Mr.. Frost said this was not a water
oil Iipo far fny~ a T1,n
company was an association of the citi-
zens of this valley to furnish water for
their own use, and the only question
was as to whether the people of this val
ley were to pay their honest debts Gre
ated by conducting the water system, or
whether they would repudiate them and
in repudiating them lose their water
system.
An adjournment was taken until 1870
p. m.
Before the convening of the board in
in the afternoon Trustee LaRue offered
the following amendment to section g.
"$2. SO per acre per annum for all lands
using water, except lands supplied with
water by pressure pipes from the canal,
and 10 cents per inch for all water de-
livered by measurement to such lands
from the canals during the months of
March, April. May, June. July, August.
September, October and November, and
5 cents per inch for water delivered dur
ing the months of December, January
and February, and $40 per acre per an
mum for all lands supplied with water
by pressure pipes from the canals"
DR.. Jarvis opposed the acre rate. He
said it worked injustice to those who did
not need as much water Is some others.
1t was not just to compel A. to pay for
his own water and half-pay for BIS. IF
the rate was by the inch, then every man
would pay for what he used andno more
Hon. E. M. Holmes said he was not
particular, individually, whether the
rate was f1xed by acre or inch, but the
question was that more money must be
raised in some way. He thought no plan
could be devised by that more or less
injustice would be visited upon some. He
was willing to pay the increase.
A. H. Pulls favored the double system
proposed of raising revenue partly by
the acre and partly by the inch
Trustee Morse expressed himself as
opposed to the acre rate He was not so