The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1903-08-09
WATER RENTS MEYER
INTENDED AS REVENUE
Simply to Defray Cost of
Distribution.
FACTS CITED BY GEO. w. KING
Refers to Revised Statutes to Show
That Accumulation of Large Water
Fund Is Unlawful.

George w. King, of 1925 Thirty second
Street, who has urged in circular let
ter to the Commissioners the early in
vestigation of the Water Department
and the Assessors Office, in an inter-
view with a Times reporter vest arday
said he could not, in a short article, give
his views IN full. He does not care TO
express his opinion, without producing
at the same time facts to sustain his
! assertions. Some of his reasons have
heretofore been published and others
will follow, accompanied by the proper
proof. in detail.
Mr. King said in reference to The
water rent rates in the District:
THE conditions under which the
water is furnished to the consumers in
the District and those under which it is
| furnished to the consumers in other
cities are so different that no compar-
ison can be made regarding the annual
water rents. The United States Gov
eminent constructed the original reser-
vOirs, dam. and conduits, without cost
/ TO the citizens of the District During
the enactment Of sail law the general ex-
preston in Congress was that the citizens
were to have the surplus water over
and above that which was necessary for
| the use of the public buildings and
! grounds, at no greater cost than nee
| essary to pay for the pipes conveying it
/ to their residences and keeping the
| same in order. (See contemporaneous
| Congressional Record. and section 1919.
R s.
Free Water Promised.
las an example, section 1913 of the Re
vised Statutes of the United States, re-
lating to the District OF Columbia,
states: Water rates levied in Washing
ton and Georgetown shall never be a
source Of revenue, other than as
means Of keeping up to the said cities
a supply of water, but shall constitute
| a fund exclusively for maintenance and
management and repair Of the system
of water distribution.
During the construction of the water
works l, with many others who are now
| living. heard General Meigs. the design
er and engineer in charge, say that II
was intended that the construction Of
| these works should be Of such charac-
ter as to almost entirely do away with
| future expense. and the water should
| be in the near future latter the compile
/ ton of the works., given to the CON
/ sumers thereof free, In case of George
town, ind very little expense to the
! consumers in Washington.
Favor to Georgetown.
This discrimination between Wash
/ ington and Georgetown arose from the
/ fact that the citizens of Georgetown
! (then distinct corporation) accepted
the Qroviso. which is shown in section
| 2O9, reading as follows: Water tax not
! exceeding 60 cents per front foot may
| be levied and collected on all lots and
parts of lots within the limits Of the
/ city Of Georgetown in front or parallel
| 10 which water mains may be laid
- Section 213. The taxes mentioned in
! the four preceding sections referring TO
| the arrangement in Revised Statutesl
| shall never be q source of revenue other
than as means of supplying the city
OF Georgetown with water
zone of the four sections (No. 212)
| being partly quoted: And shall cease
| whenever the cost of the distribution of
water is fully paid
This relation of the water :aker IN
reference to the cost Of the original con-
/ struction is carefully kept out of sight
/ by those connected with the office of the
water department, and is probably not
known 10 those who write editorials in
! the dailies asserting that the water
rates in Washington are lower than in
| other cities. In many cases this is not
a fact. In other cities the entire cost of
construction was paid by the taxpayers.
Showing in Auditors Report.
The Auditor for the District reports.
for the year ending June 30 1902. under
the head of water fund, as follows:
Balance to the credit OF the water
funds OF the District of Columbia in the
United States Treasury. July !. 1901,
S376, 1929; amount Of collections de-
posted in the United States Treasury
| during fiscal year of 1902, $685., 4O2; re-
payments, S33, S5O.37. Total amount avail
! able for expenditures (water fund.-, $685.
| C65.26.'
The accumulation of this fund is con-
! trary to sections 1873 PIP and 213 of the
! Revised Statutes before cited.
That there Is a need of revision and
simplidcation in the manner of making
| out water bills and the payment Of the
Same is self-evident. The statutory re-
/ quirements should be complied with. the
/ rights of the taxpayer protected, and
! the intentions of Congress carried out.
! The construction of the law IS clear.
! The governing desire in the water Office
appears to be simply the collection OF a
! largo revenue -