The San Francisco call., 1904-11-17
oAKLAND'S WATER SUPPLY.

THE water question again Oakland
committee made propositions upon which
advice sought from the people One is to pay the Bay CeS
Water Company bring supply the city ne the price BENG
S375oOOo the city to construct distributing system when me
believe will less than Soooooo making the total
S75ooOo for which the whole city IS to be
bonded the exhaustion of its credit TO that amount
The position of The Call upon municipal ownership OF PubHc
believe that all plants owned should
exclusively bear the credit used in their ACQUISITION leaving the %
al credit unncumbered In other words doing Just as VIII be
done the OF the San Francisco seawa which will
alone carry the 100000 bonds issued for its construction and
pay leaving the taxpayers of the city and
with the seawai why not with the Oakland water plant
The proponents OF municipal trading in this country now
guarantee wisdom and the
municipal management OF uty plant With such object lessons
large California who favor municipal
should be discussed business proposition in which prejudice
and recriminaton have proper part.
The City Council of Oakland considered the matter when Mr.
poyed report upon plan which renewed by the citizens
His report that the Bay Cities Company could com
mand only 100000 gallons per day instead OF the 2ooooooo now
reported by the committee and that the quality the water
undesirable The renewed offer obvlate neither OF these
Since tzgeraas ana the oter reports We're made he anu owners
in the Santa Clara Valley have begun litigation the
that end The Spring Valley also has claims the water
supply begun protect them. Under such crum
stances risky thing to burden the cts credit SO largely
project doubtful and so much ncumbered by litigation
AS alternative plan the committee submits the taking of
supply puts gallons OF this the Contra Costa Com
already and the beet mill 100000 while
the Spring Valley Company claims much and private land
gable also and subject 10 be tied up by Injunction In view Of all
this possible that the plans of the citizens committee do
fit the case?
In the report made by Mr. Howard the City Council prn-
that away from. recognized
every European that is in municipal trading 1t is that
city should embark municipal ownership competition with
already the field This recognized the
Of Cleveland where the refused embark in municipal
electric light and power competition with private plant The
claim Oakland for based upon the
that the Contra Costa plant overvaued that its
waeed, fact Now If this and the real value of the
what the Council has declared plain that
compete successfully municipal plant costing fully
and likely more? When the economy admins
ng private plant ptted against the and waste
that inevitable in municipal administration the extreme
dom of leaving the private plant the field should be apparent
The Oakland situation of far outside the field
IN which lies feature that embark
ing upon the policy Of municipal ownership 1t involves the
hauson Of the public credit putting the upon the plant
itself 1t involves quantity and quality of supply and intricate
litigation between different claimants and the competition
plant condemned only for bang overvauatio
which, if that the field In OF the
cOmpey the problem the existing plant refused sell
lease apparent that before the decision made the city will
have enlarge plans and further greater scheme
that free from the intricate entangemen that
proposed Let be remembered that the larger the
the better ability bonds and its