The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1908-01-31
DENIES EVERY MATERIAL ALLEGATION AND
INSISTS THAT 1T IS COMPLYING
WITH IT'S CONTRACT.
AYERS THAT ITS SERVICE ADEQUATE THAT
PURE AND SUFFICIENT AND THAT ITS LIGHT
IS IN GOOD coNDIr LONESOME WARM


Answering the bill fled last octobe
by the City Of Columbia seeking Il
forfeit its franchise and annul its sew
eral contracts. the Columbia Water 4
Light Company denies practically al
Of the material allegations in its for
NAL answer filed today in the Chan
Gerry Court. The one exception is the
frank admission that the defendant
has not duplicated its light plant, but
reasons are given why this has not
bees zone.
After the usual formal admissions
as to the first allegations contained
in the bill the defendant admits the
existence of the several contracts
enumerated, and then denies that its
plant is inadequate or that the water
r light service furnished is made
quate or that its plant has deterioated
and run down and il ION the verge Of
a collapse
The answer specifically denies that
the water supply Is taken from below
the mouth Of Helms branch, and It is
also denied that any Of the
water furnished to the city receives
any of the drainage Of the city of
Columbia; that the intake pipe is To-
Gated now where it has been for the
past ten years; that at no stage does
the sewage OF the city get into the
intake pipe, but on the contrary the
intake is some distance above the
mouth of this natural drainage; II is
denied that the emergency pipe as
originally located by ordinance Of the
city has been used during the past
seven years and when it was used
prior to that time 1t was with the con-
sent of the city.
The answer states that the defend
ant does not know what chemists as
charged in the bill have analysed the
water furnished to the public and
found the same unfit for public use,
but declares that such analysis is
false, and AYERS that defendant has
had the water of Duck river
analysed and it was found ft for
domestic use and wholesome and I'M
likely to produce disease. 1t is
averred that some people who have
cisterns use the defendants water for
drinking purposes as a matter OF
choice.
It is denied that no effort IS made
to clarity or filter the water furnished
to consumers, and defendant
says that although II
has no contract with the city to
clarity the water, it has system of
at the intake pipe similar
o that used by he city of Nashville.
/ is denied that the water is rarely
lear. 1t also denies that it is obli-
sated by its charter or contract to
urnish clear water, as the contract
'rovides only that water shall be fur.
lished from Duck river, and makes
10 provision for filtration. :
It Is also pointed out that the con.
ract limits the price for water and It
you'd be unfair to require clear water
I the limited price fixed in the con-
ract based on Duck river water I'M !
Uttered. It is denied that filtration =
liant that would clarity the water !. !,
ould be installed at small additional :,
ost or that 1t is customry to have :.
9'A plants. Il 10 willing to clarity :,
- water provided the city will allow :,
TO be reasonably compensated for -
u doing. II 10 stated thst In 1900 :,
.;ration plant was installed and II is :
enied that the plant has become % :,
hnked with mud and denies that 1t :.
as failed for months to clean II out !.
II Is emphaticaily denied that large
Of mud and nth are pumped :,
nto the reservoir, but says that It IL 7,