Coeur d'Alene evening press. (Coeur d'Alene, Idaho) 1907-1929, 1910-04-27


matter before the taxpayers We
are heartily in favor of the city own
ing water works, provided such own
ership will better the condition of
the water consumers, and not re.
quest us to assist corporation to un-
load an undesirable water plant onto
the taxpayers at double its yalues'
The answer to this is the fact that
the city cannot own a water system
in any other way than by the pur-
chase of the present system from the
fact that the Kootenai Power COM
pany owns and CONTROLS the only
source of electric power available In
this city and the Consumers company
offers to transfer its contract for
power to the city, costing $3.50 a
month in case the plant is purchased
To build city plant and use steam
power will require fifteen cords of
wood daily for fuel at a cost of NOT
less than 81 per cord, or $50 a day.
$1,000 a month, with three or four
extra men to handle the same. This
one item alone makes municipal
ownership impossible without the
electric power and no business man
would spend $500 for power that
he could purchase for $3.50. This
difference would also enable the pri-
vate corporation to sell water at a
profit for price that would bank
rupt the city in competition to it.
I'VE object to the city purchasing
water works with reservoir that has
been repaired and patched several
times to stop it leaking, and a large
amount of old pipe in the system that
must soon be replaced. The water
mains were laid before the present
street grading was done and have
frozen up in many places. When the
proposed new street grading is com
pleted, the water mains will freeze
up in great many more places, caus-
ing heavy expenses to lower the pipe,
which should be paid by the present
water company and not saddle that
expense onto the taxpayers. Have
you endeavored to ascertain what the
water works are worth outside of
what the water company, their sup
porters and Professor Waller have
informed you? If not, you should
certainly do so.'
These objections are not valid for
the reason that no one claims the
plant to be new or as good as new,
neither did the expert engineer, Mr..
Waller, figure its value at the cost
OF new system of the same capa-
city by approximately 100000. If 4
the plant is not even worth the price
asked, the profits of the business
make it worth more than could pos
sibly be figured with two systems in
operation and that is what would
follow the construction of new
plant by the city, because there is no
law on earth that would permit the |
shutting down of the Consumers
company system until its franchise |
expired. 1t is true that some OF the
pipes may have to be lowered on ac-
count of street grading, but all such
expenses are figured in maintenance
and the Consumers company will
make the people foot the bill instead
of doing so itself as claimed in the
above-it is not doing business for
fun nor for the benefit of the public,
so that the argument is not good.
The water consumers should have
had the privilege of calling in practi- |
cal men in that line, men who have
had the necessary experience in the |
iield and know the market value of j.
such material, and to dig down and !
make such examinations in a |
Thorough manner. Such men could !
not possibly have placed valuation |
on the present water works plant to
exceed $4,000, and very likely, it |
would have been considerably less. |
0aNh hAS bSCh lhC NeAbC Nu0IG LAdl
class of men have been called in by |
the taxpayers and placed just valu-
alton on what they found in the |
plant"
The water consumers as a body or
as individuals have had the right and
still have the right to call in an ex-
pert to examine the water system and
furnish an estimate of its value. How
ever that has been done through |
their representatives elected on the
issue of municipal ownership |
and in conforming to their
wishes these representatives
have employed a disinterested expert |
who has examined the plant and re-
ported it worth S134,0OO. If any
one il dissatisf1ed with this estimate