Waterbury evening Democrat., 1907-01-18

It can be seen from this table that cities like Hartford, Connecticut. Fall River, Mass, Woonsocket. R. l., and
 Lexington. Ky, which are entirely me- about normal, and much lower than that of unmetered cities, like those shown in the lower column. The vast difference between the consumption fin because the people in one city need any more water than those in another city, but Is owing to the fact that there is more waste in an unmetered city than in a metered city.
 It does not appear to the average citizen the amount of water that goes to waste on account or leaks In fau-
 cets and closets. The best system of inspection and prevention possible has been instituted in cities but still leaks will exist and waste water. X leaking faucet will waste from 15 to 800 gallons daily. and n leaking ball cock in a clos ct tank will waste 1000 gallons in 2f hourse. which is as much as 20 people could use for domestic purposes. as the proportion for domestic use should be from 20 to 60 gallons per capita per day.
 u is never the intention of any water department. as far as We can learn. to curtail any consumer in the legitimate use of water. but rather tO make the
 rate such that every one shall have a
 plentiful supply. enough for all pur- poses but none for waste.
 During a recent house to house can-
 vass and inspection in this City. it was
 found that out of 70 houses owned by .
 real estate operator there were IS
 leaking closets and i2 leaking faucets AS we showed above how much a leak ing faucet and closets waste. tt ts not
 a lifficfNt matter fs calculate the amount of water that was wasted by ncgIecting to repair these fixtures. The only fair way to avoid such waste Is
 by the meter system. for with this sys-
 tenn the consumer pays Tor just what
 water he uses and no more. He Is not or neglect Of his neighbOr-
 It Is argued that the prevention Of
 waste of water by the adoption of me-
 ters would tend to nncleanliness and
 ter is a good thing becauSe it nushes the plumbing and sewers. thereby pro-
 noting hygienic results This argu-
 riIent might be answered by the fact that no such effects have resulted from the prevention of waste in Hartford. Conn. Fall River. Mass. or any other City. and that as a fact the most
 wastefui cities are the most unclezu
 Besides the rates in most places are 60
 low that the minimum rate permits the consumer Co use plenty of water for all necessary purposes.
 That the waste of water in houses is good thing. in as much as U nushss true. As a matter of fact. such waste has a contrary effect on house plumb ing because it keeps these house pipes continually moist. whtch prevents ox- Ifafiou br air ventilation. AS to flushing the street sewers, thls waste
 distributed as it Is through all the sewers amounts to nothing as far as flushing is curcerned- whereas a much smaller quantity. forced through each sewer in a great volume and with some force would accomplish good results
 The ccnssnsus of opinion among wa ter departments seems to be tn favor Of rhew have cuf down the co1sumptior to the proper amount and have saved fhcr1ssrfS of dollars which would have hr<r erpen6ed fr seeking new sources order 10 secure mere water They have .rso nafrfafre6 their w1fkr pressure d . m9ro csnstamf ho14 thu9 a1orGtn9