Harrisburg telegraph. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1879-1948, 1919-09-20
STATE DEMANDS
WATER LOSS END
Waste of Half Million Gallons
a Day at Marsh Run
tA Depot Scored

Complaint by the United States
Government against classification OF
rates for water service to the Quar-
Nermaster's Reserve Depot at Marsh
Run. York county, by the Riverton
Consolidated Water Company, Le-
moyne. Cumberland county, is up
held by the Public Service Commits
sion in an opinion by Chairman W.
d. B. Ainey issued to-day, but the
failure of the Government to pro-
tect against leakage on the water
main to the military reservation is
sharply criticised.
"The enormous leakage of water
in the eight-inch wooden staVe pipe
line laid by the United states GOV
ernment to connect pumps at the
filtration plant of respondent water
company with the military reserva-
ton at Marsh Run, aggregatlns
100000 gallons daily as against an
actual use of but 175,OOO gallons
per day with the resultant cost 10
the Government or loss to the re-
spondent company of approximately
$4,000 per annum," says the decis-
ion, "makes the issue presented py
complaint and answer appear 1nsig
nificant. 1t is such an extreme ana
prodigal waste of water that in the
public interest it should be stopped.
The saving to the United States Gov
eminent or to the respondent would
be several times more than the
amount involved in the present con-
troversy."
Army Notified
Copies of the decision have been
sent to the United States authori-
ties in charge of the military reser-
walton of $40 acres which contain a
huge Army reserve depot including
storehouses, barracks, bakeries, etc.
The complaint grew out of charges
made for water service for fire pro-
lection, the allegation being that the
company charged the Government
for private fire protection as well
as on a meter basis. The charge for
the private protection was objected
to, the Government complaining that
it "is taking water on a metered
basis and that it is of no moment
to the respondent company what
it does with that water after 1t is
metered and is delivered to COM
plainants tanks"
The opinion says in part:
"The stand ready service in fire
protection as ordinarily furnished
emphasizes two factors. a sufficient
volume of water in readiness to meet
fire emergencies, and the delivery
of that water at requisite pressure.
with respect to both these factors
the Government has, in part at least,
by storage tanks, elevation and
pumps supplemented, and to that eX-
tent relieved the company of its
stand ready obligation. In ordinary
practice water furnished for private
fire hydrants or automatic sprinklers
is not metered or thus chargeable.
In fact respondents tariff. Article z,
excerpts fire hydrants from meter
ing.
Clear Cut Issue
THE issue as presented is the
applica bility of the filed rates and
no evidence has been presented with
respect to their reasonableness. Can
the respondent under its tariffs sub
ject the complainant to pay under
two different rates or classifications
for the same service? The COM
plainant does pay for all water de-
hvered to the eight-inch wooden
pipe line as it is measured and the
rate includes the stand ready serv-
ice whether the stand ready ele-
ment is large enough or too large,
we have no evidence from which to
determine, but as the right of in
itiating rates rests with respondent,
there is some presumption that it
has included a reasonable amount
for that purpose. We, of course,
cannot sustain a duplication of these
charges and require complainant to
again pay for this rate factor under
a private fire protection schedule.
Again the private fire protection
rate is as respondents tariff dis
closes one freed from meter or con-
sumption elements. If, therefore.
to the complainant's service, it
would require complainant to pay
for consumption under the fire pro-
lection rates at meter terms; 1t
would subject it to the duplication
of readiness to serve charges i'm
posed by both rates. Glass rates
and commodity rates on railroads
cannot both be applied.
1T may be that the respondent
has not imposed a sufficient de
mand or ready to serve charge in
its meter rate when the same is ap-
piled to private fire protection which
complainant requires, but we can
not determine that question under
the evidence before us. We do not
intend to convey the impression that
a rate for private fire protection may
not be prescribed, inclusive of con-
sumption (metered) and demand
elements, but we are clear the re-
spondent's tariffs do not authorize
the imposition for the same service.
OF the two rataq 0arrial ~ ;t. - :