Evening star., 1932-06-03
"Consideration of the Facts"

statement which, while recorded else
where in these columns today, is for
convenience in this discussion printed
Aere, as follows
I have noticed on several occasions,
in both editorial and news items, state
mentS to the effect that the Federal
Government in Washington receives its
water free from the water consumers in
the District of Columbia. While this
statement is literally true in the sense
that actual payment for the water used
by the Federal Government IS not made,
q consideration of the facts will clearly
show that. in fact, the statement Is
both misleading and incorrect.
Since its inception. which was pri-
marily for the service of the Federal
Government and not for the citizens Of
Washington, the Federal Government
has expended on the existing wat-r sup
ply system total of S12.4ll, 1854.
During the fiscal year ended June 80,
1881. the United States used total Of
3,243 100000 gallons Of water Had
payment been made by the Federal
Government at the rate charged other
consumers the amount involved would
represent return on money invested Of
244 per cent. If it be assumed that a
4CbQlIl Oil Sdpltui fSotCu Va OTg pei
cent be a reasonable one 1t is evident
that instead of receiving its water free
the United States has, in effect, paid
approximately 40 per cent more for the
water which 1t has used than have other
consumers in the City of Washington.
The Star is indebted to Maj. Arthur
for his frank invitation for "a consid-
Grafton of the facts for it is believed
that such consideration will clear up
the confusion that has for some time
existed over the figures representing
Uncle Sans capital investment in the
water plant as presented by the United
States District Engineers office.
The total of Sl2,41l,3l5.64 does not
IN the first place, represent the capital
investment on which a return could,
under accepted accounting practice or
methods Of valuation. be claimed. That
figure includes, for instance, 81 ,222 ,316.72
spent on maintenance or operating cost
Of the water system. It includes S223,-
62181 spent by the United States prior
to 1883 on carrying spring water from
Reservoir to the Capitol. 1t includes
$500, 900 spent between 1853 and 1880
on the original plant, which after 20
years of use had become so inadequate
and obsolete that the new, larger plant
was planned, into the financing of
which, after having been begun, the
District was dragged as involuntary
contributor. 1t would be difficult to
support claim for a 3la per cent re-
turn on a total investment of S12,411,-
1854 that not only includes operating
costs as capital outlay but apparently
makes no provision for depreciation or
obsolescence. Such a claim is unique,
10 say the least
Until the water system is operated
under approved methods of account
ing, as the Bureau of Efficiency has
suggested, it is idle to attempt an
accurate appraisal of capital investment
In the plant. 1t is sufficient here
to compare, with the engineers figures,
the investment in plant by the United
States with the investment in plant by
the people of the District, whose con-
tributions have been made as water tax
Crent) payers and as general tax payers.
The United States has spent in con-
struction Slo,965, ,377.11, as against the
taxpayers expenditure under the same
head of S24 689, ,463.49. The United
States has spent in maintenance 81 ,222,-
316.72, as against the taxpayers ST.
$50, 0,859.64. In totals the United States
has spent $l2,41l ,3l5 "a, while the local
taxpayers have spent S42,570,32313.
Measured by comparative expenditures
on construction, the people of the Dis
trict are equitable owners of more than
two-thirds of the water plant.
This community's contribution Of
twenty-four millions for water plant
construction since 1880 was for the
newest portions of the plant which
have suffered least depreciation. AS a
result Of the far greater depreciation
and gradual obsolescence of the portion
Of the plant contributed to the partner
ship by the United States the Nation is
today the equitable owner of much less
than this one-third, and the District
owns far more than two-thirds.
If the United States is to be viewed
rs entitled to credit for interest on it's
twelve millions, less depreciation, less
operating costs, are not the people Of
the District entitled to credit on their
tventy-four millions of similar invest
pnent?
The statement of account between the
equitable owners of the water system
shows on the one side the United States
.(one-third owner as receiving interest
on its one-third investment in terms of
3,243, 200 900 gallons of water in a year
and paying nothing more, and on the
other side the local general tax and
water tax paying community two-
thirds oWner) contributing the interest
on its two-thirds investment, and, in
addition, paying in water taxes, meas
ured by the amount Of water used, for
every gallon Of its water at tax rates
steadily increased by the United States
.(the non-paying one-third owneD un-
ttl the revenues thus obtained are made
to pay not only all costs of main
tenance but of all plant construction
for water supply and water distribution.
The Capital community ttwo-thirds
equitable owner of the water supply and
distribution system pays for every gall
Ion Of water that it uses and furnishes
billions Of gallons of free water every
year to the United States Cone-third
equitable owner) and to the District
government. the agent of the National