Arizona republican., 1922-03-19


"
churning. sewing and lighting and
heating by cheap electric power max
ing a new day for the home.
We must have cheap hydro -elec-
trio power for agriculture: for the
farmers wife and home. making a
new day for the country home. For
the rancher to pump waters from
wells or from canals up the hills
for irrigation, or the threshing ma
chine; for the many farmyard duties
by which cheap mechanical power
transforms the farm drudge into a
clean, self respecting and successful
farmer, planter or ranchman.
How is this cheap mechanical pow
er to be secured as demanded by our
present day necessities? One of two
ways. BY private ownership and ex-
ploitation of public resources. at vast
cost and toll to the masses or, by
public ownership from the public do
main where 1t lies. at mere cost OF
handling or production. to the people.
This is our mighty insistent prob
lem. Like Banquo's host 1t will not
down. We have both methods. Pri-
vate ownership at excessively high
administrative cost and excessive
profits to the few. We have public
ownership. We have it in many
cities and some great districts. We
have it producing, handling immense
power at cost to the municipality
and the consumer. This cost is so
much cheaper than by private own
ership, that / believe the good peo-
pie Of California have but to know
the facts and they will rise enmasse
and decree municipal and state own
ership and control of our vast pow
er resources as they lie in our vast
public domain.
What are these facts? I bring you
few of them. out of my personal
experience as mayor of Riverside for
four years and president of her elec-
trio light and power plant municipal'
ly owned.
We started 27 years ago with a
bond issue of $4,000. We have built
up out of the earnings a 100000
plant supplying light and power over
Al square miles of our city, to $4,000
people and innumerable industries
and pumping plants for thousands of
acres of orange groves. We have
turned 100000 surplus profits into
our general city funds. We have re-
newed for years back free of cost
after the first purchase price, all the
electric lamps, over 10000 OF which
are in use. We have saved our Cit
liens neaddition to all this, be-
lieve, no less than a million dollars
that they would have had to pay in
higher prices for light and power to
the private companies.
Here are the figures for last year.
1921, showing the difference in cost
for light and power to average con-
sumers in Riverside:
Though we in Riverside pay enor-
nous wholesale rates for the power
which we retail through our distrib-
uting plant. yet we sell one-third to
one-half cheaper than the private
power companies do in their terri
tory. for instance: Mr.. Fred Reed,
five horsepower pumping plant cost
him for 1921, as billed by the city of
Riverside, $120.55: had he bought OF
the Edison company it would have
been $160.59: had he bought Of the
Southern Sierras Power company 1t
would have cost him $22S.26. The AR
lington Heights Fruit company, Grat-
ton street pumping station. Riverside
city bill for $2,117: the Edison bill
would have been 1854: the South
ern Sierras bill would have been $3,-
1876. The Chase Nursery, Washing
ton street pump 80 horsepower. Riv-
erside city bill, $409: Edison. 1922;
Southern Sierras, $802, or nearly
twice the city bill These are few
out OF thousands of similar cases
showing the actual and enormous diff
ference as between municipal power
plants and private plants in coast
cities to the people. IL Riverside could
get power at cost of generating 1t as
she ought to be doing and may do
under the State Water and Power
act, she could greatly reduce these
rates.
A recent survey Of the California
cities having municipal ownership
disclosed the fact that such cities as
Pasadena, Santa Monica, Riverside,
Anaheim. Alameda. Redding, Santa
Rosa, Cotton, Porterville. Dinubam,
Reedley. Redlands, Burbank. Whit
tier, Fort Bragg, Tracy, Santa Clara,
Los Angeles and others show that
they are most successful. These cities
all have lower water rates by an
average OF 43 per cent lower than
private corporations supply water.
These cities all have light and power
at lower rates, one-third and more
lower than private companies sup
ply it.
The advantages of public owner
ship are therefore summed up as fol-
lows on the basis Of actual experience
and achievement:
A city does not have to pay divi
dends, either on actual investment or
watered stock; a city does not have
to retain lawyers, lobbyists, publicity
men and solicitors as private COM
panies do at great expense; cities
can coordinate water, light and all
public utilities at great reduction Of
cost to the people. Cities can borrow
money at much lower rate of interest
than private corporations. The over
head expense in public ownership is
immensely less than in private COM
panies, whose enormous salaries to
their officials is nothing less than a
public scandal. Public ownership