Evening journal., 1905-01-09


one side Of the street would be getting
water for their houses at .4O per l,OOO
cubic feet persons on the other side
Of the street and in other parts OF the
city would be paying perhaps go Tor
/ ,O00 cubic feet and yet very likely be
using less water. And yet this is just
what the parties of the first part in
these proposed contracts want the de-
partment to do. They require that the
city should sell them water TO be re-
sold or supplied by them 10 persons
living in houses near their mills and
have the water so sold metered IN bulk
at their intake pipe as ABOVE ex-
planned If this should be Gone the 20
odd houses. for illustration at Ban
croft's Banks in the city limits would
be getting city water at .35 for 1000
cubic feet and houses in other parts
OF the city, and using the same OF
perhaps a less quantity of water would
be paying the higher rates. This in my
Judgment would be discrimination on
the part of the Water Department and
would be unlawful for to repeat as
have shown every house wanting water
must have one single pipe ana that
pipe must go straight to the ferrule in
the water main (whether 1t be pri-
vate main or city main) and each house
using the city water must either have
a meter attached to IT or pay for the
water used according to the number OF
bath tubs, closets, etc. used in each
house.
This is my first objection to the pro-
posed contracts.
Tho aopfroofu rannire the CltN
by implication to recognize the right
of the parties Of the first part to divert
the water Of the Brandywine to their
reservoirs they surrendering their pre-
tended rights to so divert the Brandy
wine water to their deservoirs upon the
condition virtually that the city would
supply their water systems with water
fro mits own water mains-and they
also require the city virtually TO recog-
nize their right TO exist and to expend
within the city limits as opposition
water companies.
The parties of the first part have
been unlawfLlly diverting the water OF
the Brandywine from its bed and stor-
ing the same in private reservoirs OF
their own, two of which are in the city
Limits. And they claim that they now
have a right so to do their claim be-
ling based on long adverse user. A
riparian proprietor it seems may re-
quire rights formally belonging t'
others in this way as against indiv'd
uals but It is a general principle o.
law that the doctrine of adverse use
does not apply to a state, and not to
city as to those matters concerning th'
public at large
And one of the reservoirs in the cit
limits has only been built. 1 am IN
formed, some eight or ten years, and a
twenty years adverse user is held T.
be requisite to acquire rights in thi
manner it would seem, admitting, TO
the sake Of argument, that their lega
contention is correct that it would no
lapply in the last mentioned case. tn
city by entering into these contracts
however, they agreeing to cease divert
ing the water to their reservoirs upoi
the condition virtually, that the cit
would supply their village water sys
TEN with water from its own wate
mains. would by so doing very likel
be recognizing their righ TO do as the
claim or what is the same thing, b
. estopped from denying these allege
rights. This the city should not do 70
the water belongs to the city as muc
las to them, their rights as riparia
lproprietors being, not to take the waite
. out of the stream, but simply to max
a reasonable use of it as 1t flows pas
them for the purposes OF their mill
and for domestic purposes and thi
, practically only for one family. An
after this reasonable use OF the waite
n. - 4. -
| riparian proprietors (the city being on
! of them) in the same volume, with tn
same current, and in as pure a state a
3 it came to them. And as this water
] diverted and stored in their reseI
! voirs not for ashing purposes. but fC
! the purpose Of supplying it to tn
houses of persons living near the
/. mills for drinking and domestic pun
! poses generally and as these two {
} three reservoirs are now n the eft
/. limits as above stated they are praC
/ tically opposition water companie
. The contracts provide for not merely
I recognition Of them as they now exis
n but they also provide for an extensio
Z of their systems. The principle is wh'
y we must consider. If the departmel
4 can supply one opposition water con
9 pany with city water to be sold to
n used in houses in the city limits it ca
do the same to any number of OF
y position companies. If 1t cannot
! sell the city water to many such con
: panies it cannot sell it to one of theI
r The act creating the Board Of Wat
4 Commissioners in Sections 1 and 4 ca
e tains the following language:
q Sec. 1. "The City of Wilmington
Z and through the agency Of the Board
v Water Commissioners may tai
q and hold land and water rights for su
q plying the citizens with good and Who'll
s some water"
n This section says that the Citizens
e not opposition water companies shall
n supplied with good and wsolesome wats
|. Sec 4. "The Board of Water Commi
e sioners shall have control Of all matte
l. relating to the water supply in the ci
n of Wilmington"
= If opposition water companies are
It have control to a certain extent of Z
II citys water supply then 1t would see
Y that the city cannot have all control
: the same. This Is my second objection
= the proposed contracts.
Il III. The partits OF the first part CO
v tract to sell Cor attempt to seiD TO I
ie city the right TO perpetually divert I
= water from (that is take the same fre
n Continued on Page Five.)