The Corvallis times. (Corvallis, Or.) 1888-1909, 1906-06-22
STILL DEBATE IT.

Proposed Charge for Water
Connections.
The controversy over the charge
for connecting consumers with the
Mountain Water system is still on
but is diminished in fervor,
The effect Of the agitation is prov
ing beneficial in that a better under
standing on the subject is being
reached by all citizens. For in
stance, practically all of those
familiar with the situation are
ready to admit that a charge of
some kind will have to be made in
order to provide a sufficient sum to
pay the cost of materials and labor
in making the connections. Those
in charge of the system, cannot law
fully go in debt one cent for any
purpose, now that the money from
the bond sale is exhausted. To go
in debt would be an injustice to the
bond holders, and to the people of
Corvallis, whose credit is at stake.
To attempt to go in debt, would
give any citizen the right to prevent
it by Injunction. It would in addi-
ton be bad precedent. Yet it
will cost the city IS for every con-
sumer that is connected. With the
bond money exhausted, how then
could the connections be made in
any other way than by the con-
sumers themselves putting up the
money for it. The facts as to this
point are coming to be understood
by most people, and more and more
there is a general willingness on
the part of the citizens to put up
the money necessary to make con-
nections. The cost of connecting
each consumer was itemized in
Tuesdays TIMES, as follows:
The actual figures are:
galvanized elbow, .o8.
three-fourths reducer or coup
, ling, .o8.
brass corporation cock, go.
I "a brass curb cock. 10.
+ cast iron service box, so.
IS #. of "a galvanized wrought
iron pipe. 1.75. Total. 1911.
I. With $3.7I as the actual cost O
$ fittings. the allowance for labor il
t making the connections under the
proposed IS charge is only $1.29
and there are many who say the
{ labor will cost more. In any event
+ the necessity of getting from some
). source and in some way, about S:
i. for each connection to be made II
! order to begin operations, seems t.
be an alternative that cannot bt
S avoided.
:, While great many people have
y come to better understand the tap
n ping charge. there is a widespread
view that a part if not all of thi
. charge might be rebated to eact
q consumer in credits for his water
e Some suggest that rs per cent o
It his monthly charge for water b.
n rebated to each consumer eacl
;. month until the whole SIS is PAID
. back. Others propose that on,
e dollar per year be rebated, returning
IS the entire tapping charge back t
the consumer at the end of fv,
l. years. There are still others VIII,
propose that under the circumstance
rebate of only one half the SIS il
u easy proportions would be salts
d factory to many of those who nov
raise objections. The willingness
to pay the charge provided ther
be some arrangement for a rebat
in water service seems we'll nigl
4 universal. Indeed there are man,
e level-headed business men alon,
" the street who are of the opinion
II that it would be good bushes
q policy for those in charge of th
!. system to make some arrangemen
le for rebate of some kind. The,
e argue that such step will secur
le more consumers, and that NOR
4 consumers will make more revenu
20 to the system out of which to pa,
!. rebate, On the other hand, ther
v are those who have been opposin,
q the tapping charge who now say
: since reaching an understanding c
the conditions, that it is just a
: we'll to let the IS charge stand with
out any rebate at all, because il
any event the consumer is payin!
:, the money in part to himself, an
4 4 what he pays now he will be save
!, from paying later on.
In the controversy, all peopl
ought to keep in mind the fact tha
: they are part owners in the ney
.r water system, They are all part
ners in the business. It does nc