The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1909-08-15

the cost of water to the city govern
ment. That is to say that in the para
graph concerning the water charges 10
the city it says "all consumption in
excess of ten million gallons annually
to be paid for at the rate of six cents
per one thousand gallons
But this is in direct violation of their
existing contract with the city which
reads:
Section 81. And all rights and pri-
vileges herein granted to the city of
water for the use of the city, citizens
and the public free of cost, shall con-
tinue free and without cost during all
the time said company, it's successors
or assigns, shall hold or exercise any
rights or privileges within said city
now granted by this ordinance.
The joker becomes apparent when il
is known that the city used last year
on the admission of the company
something over fifty million gal
Ions of water. BY a simple sum In
subtraction it will be seen that this
will mount up to forty million gallons
that the city would have to pay at &
cents per thousand, costing $2,4OO ev-
cry year.
No Mention Of Water Quality.
In view of the fact that the quality
of the water and it's quantity has been
the subject of most of the talk which
the water works representatives have
carried on when the subject of the wat
| er works has come up, it is most anus
i ing to see that this has been left out
entirely in their submission of con-
tract. No one needs to be told that the
entire health of the town depends on
the quality of the water nor that the
| In the present contract the water has
to be approved by council and the
health authorities.
Tapping Charge ignored.
Ignoring the restrictions for tap
ping charge may not seem such an i'm
portant item to the ordinary citizen
But the company could with this omfs
sion charge the citizen twenty-five
fifty or even hundred dollars for s
tap IL it wanted to- So it is matter
worth pointing out. AS to how thu
mains should be laid or how the city Il
to be protected from the constant tear
ing up of streets with no provision fo
repairs nothing is said at all. This 4
a most important item inasmuch a
the company will use this very thin'
as an argument as to why anothe
should not operate in Richmond.
No Right.
No provision has been made for an,
number of things which were in tn
previous contract. Chief among thes
: is the right of the city to purchase
! In view of the general interest in thi
: subject at the present time it's omission
looks particularly curious.
No Penalties.
Neither does the company make an
provision as to when the franchise
to be forfeited. The past provision
inefficient enough, but it's omissio
should certainly not be overlooked.
Neither is there any mention OF fiji
pressure to be maintained. nor is thel
j of signal system and pressure guag
nor of the kind of hydrants to be use'
: There is an omission Of deduction
= when the pressure, hydrants, ETC.. d
!, not come up to requirements. Nor
r the subject of repairs of hydran
+ treated at all.
One Good Thing.
There is however one thing that Il
, water works company has propose
which is entirely beneficial. That
: the elimination of dead ends" In tt
= past the unconnected ends have MAJ
the water at those points stagnant al
sediment has accumulated there.
must be said on the other side, ho'
ever. that the company ought to
: this because it pertains to efiicie
. service and good quality.
y No Provision for Contract Sprinkiir
It is generally admitted that the
should be provision made by the col
TO pany for contract sprinkling viii
DO will surely some day come into efft
,e in Richmond and that this should
20 provided for in the contract is t
is opinion of all those who have exa
to ined into the subject.
er Future Contracts.
-. Now that Richmond is having
VI much trouble in the renewing of
~ water works contract it may be son
en- what disheartening to notice that
re company in this contract, as submit
~ does not even pause to consider
lts - ----
&c Continued on Page Four.)