Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-10-04
Water System Inequities.

A report by the Bureau of Efficiency,
which appears elsewhere in todays Star,
sheds additional light on the inequities
Of the present arrangement for sup
porting the water system. One Of the
interesting points developed in this re-
port is the bureaus contention that
when the Government ceased its con-
tributions on the fixed proportionate
basis in 1925 it IN effect repudiated Its
right to a partnership in the various
enterprises to which it had in the past
contributed The Bureau Of Efficiency
argues. therefore, that since 1925 the
Federal Government has not contributed
a penny to the development of the
water system. The bureau considers
the nine or nine and half million
dollar annual lump sum as fiat con-
tribution. which no longer can be con-
strueA as purchasing" for Uncle Sam
equities in such undertakings as the
water system.
The effect of this argument, applied
to the water system. is to invalidate the
claim by the United States to a large
fraction Of its ownership. In comput-
ing ownership of the system as between
the District of Columbia, the Water De-
partment and the United States, the
United States engineer has always in
Guided as a part Of the Federal invest
naent the proportionate part OF the
lun1p-sum contribution that the lump
sum represents in the District bill. The
effect. naturally, has been to increase
the amount Of Federal equity claimed.
But this theoriZing on the part OF the
bureau, interesting as it may be, is not
necessary to support the claim by the
people of the District to major owner
ship in the water system. That claim
IS amply supported by the figures. The
people of the District have invested
more than twice as much in the water
system as the Federal Government.
The real ownership" of the water
plant is important only in so far as 1t
bears on the rightful responsibilities OF
the owners. The Bureau of Efficiency
points out that the United States be-
gan the construction of the water sys-
TEN. later taking the District into equal
partnership in its development and
support. later diminishing its own sup
port to forty per cent, later still With
drawing entirely from support OF the
system. Yet, owning only minor part
of the water system, contributing moth
ing to its support the United States
continues to get its water free. And
now the support and extension OF the
water system have been thrown entirely
on the shoulders of the private con-
sumers. They. the major owners of
the system, must pay not only for the
water they use. but for the water that
the United States and its agent, the
District Government, uses. Instead OF
the cost of water decreasing toward the
desideratum of free water, the cost Is
mounting.
The Bureau of Efficiency points out
that only a little more than half the
water produced pays any revenue. That
Is the part sold to private consumers
The rest of the water is used without
charge by the Federal Government and
the District Government or is wasted.
The report attacks the absurdity Of
the dual control over the water system
now existing. with the United States
engineer for this district exercising
supervision over the supply system and
the Water Department controlling the
distribution system.
There is no longer any reason for
such dual control. The Water Depart
ment should have exclusive jurisdic-
ton.
The report recommends. further, an
accurate and scientific valuation Of the
water system, upon which to base wa
ter rates. This should be done. There
has been nothing scientific nor fair
about fixing water rates in the past.
The data supporting recommendations
for higher rates have consisted, in the
main, of misleading figures from the
United States Engineers Office relating
to relative investments in the system |
tabulations Of water rates in other |
cities. which has nothing to do with the |
case, and desire on the part Of some
influential members of Congress to re-
lieve the Federal Government of its
due responsibilities in supporting the |
water system.