Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-11-22
THE WATER METER QUESTION.
REPLY TO THE CARD OF MIR. w.
T. BROOKE

Il. BROOKE
The contribution to the, literature on /,
the meter question from the pen of Mr..
W. i. Brooke. tina appeared In q morn
liz paper yesterday, attracted consider-
abe attention on account of the pro-
iessional standing and office Of the
writer. although he was careful to state
ms official capacity.
RMS reservation shows excellent fore
sight on the part of Mr.. Brooke, as the
article in question, while apparently
plain and quite plausible, is, on investi-
cation. probably as weak an argument
In favor of the adoption of water meters
as could be devised.
Permit me to examine Mr.. Brookc'S
statements exactly as he made them
lie says, IN answer to the question rs
Inc (meter) question n simple one?"
by no means. Really 1t is an en-
ceedingly complicated one. and there
are many elements In it that would
nave to be considered. The amount
necessary for supplying water to the
peop,c is one clement, and think 1t is
. an impregnable proposition that the
money taken from the people should be
sctubuiously ana economically eXpend-
eu Tor the equitable benefit of each and
every one of the people. Moreover. that
where saving of any OF this money
can be made there should be no doubt
as TO the propriety of so doing. Let us
examine Approximately the cost of de-
IFerins one million gallons OF water TO
the consumer From the last rcnort of
the Water Board see that tho running
expenses, plus the Interest on bonds
amounted to In round numbers SOS 900.
CT S260 per day. Inquiry at the water
works show that filtering the water has
cost about 500 per day additional. Now
80 me pumping averages about five
u "a 1ny
..ake the delivery cost the taxpayer
800 per million gallons pumped. If
water is being wasted and we could
save the pumping of only one million
sa'ions per day, we would have saved
10 the taxpayer $4,000 per annum. ii
SEEMS 10 me that the solution of this
eiement or the question in favor of tho
taxpayer is worthy of the considero
tlon OF such commission us l have
suggested"
There! You see the whole matter is as
clear as day. II . apples cost s cents
ana man decides he can set along
| with apples, he can pay cents ret
apples and have l cent left for other
! expenditures
Just so, if 1t costs $4,000 per day to
pump 6.OO0,u00 gallons of water, (see
Mr. Brooke's figures), and we pump
only 100000 gallons. we can save one
fifth of the daily cost. viz: $4,000 ??????
Now as to facts in the case. The
pumping OF 100000 gallons less per
day Will require ms much interest on
the investment, the employment of as
many engineers, tiremen, coal beavers
and other laborers. in fact practically
as much expense as the pumping Of
100000 gallons. EXCEPT FOR a
SLIGHTLY LESSENED CONSUMP-
TION OF COAL
| VIII the pumping OF 100000 gallons
make horizontal cut OF one-l in
the long list of expenses connected with
the water supply, rs we are assured by
MIR. Brooke? The absurdity of such a
| proposition Is too apparent TO call for
consideration.
| However, let us admit for one mo-
ment. what is shown to be so erron-
eous, that the pumping of 100000 gal
Ions less would result in lesscncd OK.
pense of $4,000 per day. n total of $22,995
per year. or, as Mr.. Brooke states 1t.
| $23, 600 per annufn.
1t is estimated that the meters would
cost $1,000 each: connections. SEA-
each; total, Sill 80 each. Fifteen thou
sand meters would cost S2l7.500. The
annual interest on this sum at per
cent. is s1o,S15.00. 1t is estimated that
one Inspector can care for 500 meters.
| Fifteen thousand meters would require
thirty inspectors. The salaries OF these.
a $50 per month. will be SIS, 90 per
+, annum, Add interest and inspectors
| salaries and we have m annual eX-
| pense caused by meters of $2S.S75. Re
| pairs to meters and other incidental eX-
penses are not taken into account. Adj
NIT that n lessened consumption OF
| l. 600, 900 gallons of water will save
500, 10000 q year. Subtract 5000 from
| SoSS15.00 and we find net loss, caus-
ed by meters, of $5,S75. and this on Mr.
Brookes own figures of economy in us,
ing one-iifth less water than Is now
consumed.
AS a matter of fact the saving re-
sultant from pumping 100000 gallons
less per day, would be very nominal,
perhaps 100000 per annum. Against
this nominal saving, whatever it may
he. charge the extra meter expense of
s2SS7500 and the hopelessness and shall
lowness of Mr.. Brookes unfounded fig
| urcs can readily be seen.
Furthermore. there is something else
in life besides the waste of water. There
are other considerations. and I espe-
cially desire to call the attention of the
! public to the fact that although Mr..
| w. II. Brooke is an able engineer per-
haps one of the ablest in this country,
ton is not infallible.
The question has no more to do with
engineering than it has with dentistry,
| and, therefore, his opinion on this sub
! ject is worth no more than any other
| citizens. and not as much as many of
| our business men.