The West Virginian. [volume] (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1914-1974, 1918-07-15

have been renewed. Danger supply
|, mains from the reservoir 70 the sub
mains in the streets wiil soon be necss-
sSry.
II MAJ be said in passing that our
per capita water consumption n up'
ward OF 270 gallons each - hours
which IL yery much ABOVE the average
OF about is0 gallons Carelessness ard
tTeakage in reservoir mains and sheer
vastciulness account for a good part
OF this excessive demand and this
shoald not be tolerated in these times
Of war saving and shortage OF fuel.
Lesky bib-cocks and float values In
toilet tanks are responsible for a good
part o. he wastaee Another unjusti-
fable demand comes from allowing the
water 70 run constantly during cold
weather TO prevent freezing due TO
faulty plumbing
The installation OF meters Is the an
sycr 20 The question c! preventing
v1e.2. TIE pr,se1; city commission
ers have Installed meters a. praet''
caily ~ place vne.e the consump
tior IA large at loV rates b.; they
have not - ~ raut tie situai on In re-
GaIo q tie ,A;ee thousand or more
mail consumers.
Tbis brings % up 20 Inc point o.
ine discussion % the new rates whiCn
&c ~eraraed +" 4 yer, large majority
OF consumers as high and ozoro.i1nt,
WaeI .a, commissioners tool,
charge r wa commonly known ana
freely conceded that the water supply
/ system produced ne, revenue % up
pIOZiaaieiy fifty thousand dollars per
year.
This you'll lock Ike good bcsiscss
non. IN ordinary viewpoint Tor : p.i'
v1t- satorpr'-, but lac best aU,ic.i'
! tics o. mg2ic.pll goyeTlnen. regard
, i, very hai cuisines
Each w2tcc consumer and taxpayer
/ Is pe-iorce a st0ckholder in the ml'
uicipel wafer works company and "a
entitled 10 al the benefits derived
ihcTe;rCm We do no; suppose Tor a
moment list an puhi.c fund have
/ b.cn agpg0pria.ei without retlrns 10
~ small properly oN2cr. How. then.
does he lcsc OFT? In this wa:. The
! $40. 900 annual net reyelue from water
/ collections IS an instance. Is deposited
I in the banks CT expended in other de-
/ partn cnty zach p trt~,s IN. sewers,
( ire ana police departments. pablo
building, etc.
II Is true that the stakeholder in the
water ccmpan" gets the bcneit Of his
| share OF the $50 1000. but instead Of II
I being returned 20 him II ia expended
/ in departments which skolid b. main
tained only by the direct tex levies
therefore /; IL exactly equivalent Ia
tn9t mucn o. a. increase IN his taxes
though il doesa't appear as such on
the hooks.
That thi5 method CT taxation Il IN
| Just will be- seen frOn the following
example: \ owns properly 10 the
amount OF 100000. has three mem
bcrs in his family and four water out
/ lets Ia hic house ana his quarterly
wafer bill is &c. 3 owns property
valued at :5.COo. has six members in
: his family and three water outlets ard
his quarterly water bill Is Sc. Both A
and B therefore pay the same tex from
tbs source 10 the common levy fund
although As assessment should BIZ
twenty times that OF y. These cases
are actual aud not hypothetical, hence
the injustice OF unduly high water
rates. or course il we were served
by a private company instead of by q
municipality b would have TO pay hi;
bill Just the same as at his grocers
but we have nothing 10 DO with pri
vate company in this case and b IS
stakeholder in the municipal plant by
compulsory subscription.
Now II may sc maintained that the
extraordinarily high cost Of iuel. labor
and sa7plies 9usiifies the recent IN
! crease in water rates. In opposition
20 this plea let Us FIRST ask what has
| become Of that $4,000 net annual
revenue. /; would surely 70 a Ions
way towards meeting the extra cost
above noted. in fact II should more
than suffice. II the net revenue mas
disappeared or nes been much reduced
hy what sort o! management has this
been brought about over and above the
increased cost OF la and material?
In 1916 the tot1 ~ operating
! the pumping plant &c year was sl1,-
G.95l to which there Is to be added
I fol overhead expenses such "a depre
citation, engineering and fixed charges
approximately $500. 50 that the total
running expenses were approximately
sl9.S5S7i.
In the year just ended the price OF
coal was about three times that o;
1914. and the engineers. fTemc7 ana
supplies cost more so that the running
expenses should have been approx
mstoly S2S.S50 as against sll.6i9.7l In
1914 No such Increase is chargeab,e'
however, TO overhead expenses and the
pumping plant should have cost cp
proSima;e!y $tT.20l more last year
than IN 1875. II the same manner the