Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1910-11-10
TIE PRICE or WATER.

The people of San francisco IN Tue
earlier days--some twenty years ago, az
our recollection goes--did not own the
city water supply. a private corpora
ton furnished the city with the water
1t consumed. Both the result and tue
history of that situation have con-
WINGED us that every American mu-
niclpality should possess it's own water
supply.
At that time, happening to be In san
Francisco for a few weeks, the writer
discovered by little investigating and
computing OF ratios, that the Pacific
coast metropolis was paying about four
times rs much for its water per capt.
7 ia as was being paid in Salt Lake CITY.
and the water over there was neither
cool nor clear as was our own spark
ling liquid from the city mains. How
ever, San Francisco was not using more
than about one fifth as much water per
capita. during the summer months, as
was used here. The contrast was start
ling.
We note from california exchanges
that the Peoples Water company held
its annual meeting HE other day. and
the annual report was presented to It's
stockholders. One part Of the report
was particularly striking. II vas this.
Many years ago California placed III
the hands Of public officials the making
of water rates annually. thus allowing
the buyers to namc the price, a prin-
clple which applied to general business
mess concern in the world. This mon
strous injustice has Forced al water
companies into courts FOR protection
1t was in 1879 that California. adopt
ing the present constitution. authorized
the city council to Tx the price at which
their customers. Previous to that time
water companies fixed their own prices:
and the result was, very naturally, that
the buyers of water were completely
at the mercy of the companies, which,
of course. charged ''all the traffic would
bear" as Unrestricted and ,.nregulated
companies have generally done.
Apart from the question of price,
however, there are good reasons why
every municipality should own Its wa
ter system
Water is a primal and absolute neces-
slty. Every other commodity Is gov
erned, in the final analysis, by the law
of supply and demand II the prices
of meat, clothes. theater tickets and
| things are higher than the consumer
can pay, he goes without them. But
water Is different, Every house must
| have Its water supply. And every
/ house In every city must. with the cx-
ception of the few that are supplied
with wells, get Its water from the local
water company, when the city does not
! control Its own supply city or n
house deprived of water for twenty
four hours would be In a sort of ruin.
And so, water unlike anything else,
isn't governed by the law of supplv
ana demand as other things are. We
must have water no matter how high
| the price may be. And that price. If
the water companies had the fixing of
the rates. would be, OF course, .all the
| traffic would bear SO it is apparent
that water companies ought not to have
tho right to fix the price at which wa
ter shall be sold. If they had that
right. they would capitalize the neces-
| stiles of the people and compel them to
pay "all the traflice would bear" The,
| only limit to the price of water would
| be the cost to the consumer OF getting
| It elsewhere: or the possible removal of
the consumer to some place where wa
| ter could be had ut n lower cost II
! Is the clty,.the consumer''hn this case,
that really ought to fix the price
! a writer In the Oakland Enquirer
states the case in this way:
True, If the consumer hi.ti the I'M
| questioned and unrestricted right to Tx
the price ut which hc shall buy water.
| 1t would be a 'monstrOus injustice. But
| the consumer has not that right For
| II the rate fixed BY the consumer! be
| too low. the seller has the right to go
| into court and have the too-low rate
cancelled all ut the expense of the con-
| sumner. The consumer. therefore, can
not even If he would. inilict upon the
| seller OF water amy 'monstrous mjus-
I uce.' t
| land II the consumer had the right
to name the price at which he shall
| buy things In general business and
that right were hedgcd about rs the
water seller is by the protection of the
| courts, ut tho expense of the buyer It
would not throw into bankruptcy every
business concern in the world rs the
Peoples Water company's report puts
! II. Neither has the power possessed
| by the consumers to FIX water rates
| forced all water companies into tho
| courts for protection in the sense that
| us believe. Take the Peoples Water
(, company. for instance That company
| Is capitalizcd-sto and bonds, issued
! and unissued--for $40 600. 600. At least
$50, 000,0 of this capitalization Is wa
ter All other water companies are
also over-capitalized It Is the desire
| to protect this over capitalization md
j ,,.i:it from tha -iaAIalta Nc IN OF si-