The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1898-06-16

result? imply this: He raised the per
capita from an actual use Of 50 gallons 81
IN estimated future use OF NV ;gaitons,
being an increase of 20 per cent.
Now If we handle the question ~ US
same enlightened way and take our pres
ent per capita, which Is Claimed 70 y ~ LIZ
gallons, and increase It ~ per cent. Ws
Shall allow 1862 gallons. 4
I have called attention to the TACT THAR
the stimat of 100 gallons. Ter capi1a TOT
Boston applied to city and county taken
together. and not to a concentrated popu-
AS of the Massachusetts Board Of Health
in 1895 actually used IL gallons per capi-
Ia. OF this. Mr.. Bracket says, 80 gall
Ions was used for m~echanicaf and traae
-purposes, lea LEAVING msx s. g Now Boston 1or s'm With
a population of half a million people, U.S. a.
for mechanical n trade purposes u. sud-
800 gallons This incluaes Watea Hs and !
large number of other industries that tee
not metered at all in Jersey Saty. ~
actually meter about eignt miiion ssaso ~
consumers as Boston you would celtalltts
find the water used for mechanical ara
trade purposes would reacn Ten nttn
gallons per day, or so gallons per capita.
The total per capita used IN Jersey YIN
in 1885, which is the latest year Ior "Hlsn
we have a census, was ~ gailonS. ri.,l
and trade purposes you Use Tor oomestic
purposes and waste IS gallons,
against 81 gallons used1Dy Boston .ou
ing al 1t in another way. IL gallons per
capita for Boston is fully rs great an "a
lowance, considering your large uss 81 81
railways and factories, as Wouia De iYs
gallons for your own city. Now WRITE
Mr.. Bracket made a very Satisfactory
analysis of the use of water IN 6osloif
he did not allow himself to be blinded.
as we have seen by any such ngures n
providing for its future. The net resalt
of the Investigations in Boston was as
follows ~.
using so million gallons daily. Plans were
prepared for new works. now under con-
struction. which would furnish q to1ai
supply of 173 million gallons daily. ana y
was estimated that in twenty years y
would be necessary to increase this sup
ply still further and extensions were oul-
lined by which 1t would be possible to 90
so.
estimated to be over $25, 600. 900, and. to-
gether with what has already been ex-
pended, this will represent a total outlay
Of $35, 624, 500 for bringing water to the
city reservoirs. Considering the slow rate
of growth of Boston. this was certainly
a more liberal provision for the future
thar 70 million gallons daily would be Tor
Jersey City. The fallacy of the whole
per Capita argument ought to be evil
dent.
If you wish to provide for the future,
it is much more sensible TO base your
provision on the experience OF the past.
You can see that the increase in use
of water by railroads and large factories
now in the city or which may. be at
tracted here in the future will be no
relation whatever to the increase In pop
ulation. The 10 millions now used for
such purposes might easily be doubled
before any substantial increase could
AXE place in the population, but even II
we accept the growth of population as a
basis, we should do so In a broader spirit
than has been suggested to you. The
Boston report quoted does not consider
tho nonIlafihn 910np but of the whole
surrounding country in DISCRIMINATING the
rate of increase. In the spirit you
should take, not Jersey City alone but
the whole of Hudson county as a basis
| by which to discover the rate of increase.
This gives us the following result for the
last thirty years.