Evening star., 1932-06-03

s.- 'ts
LAIMING that the free water
received from the water system
by the Federal Government
~ represents 2.44 per cent re-
! turn on a total investment
which he places at $l2, 2,4ll,3l5o4' ana
that such return Is less than reasonable,
MAJ. ]. d. Arthur, jr., United states
engineer for this district, has made
written statement in which he takes
issue with the contention that the
"Federal Government in Washington
receives its water free from the water
consumers in the District OF Columbia.
: Maj. Arthurs statement tolloWs' III
full:
Il have noticed ON several occa-
sions, in both editorial and news
items. statements to the effect that
the Federal Government in Wash
1nston receives its water free from
the District Of Columbia. While the
statement Is literally true in the
sense that actual payment for the
water used by the FEDERAL Govern
ment is not made, consideration OF
the facts will clearly show that, IN
fact, the statement Is both mislead-
ing and incorrect.
"Since its inception, which was
primarily for the service OF the Fed
cral Government and not Tor the
citizens of Washington. the Federal
Government has expended on lhe
existing water supply system .oIa,
of Sl2,41l,31564. During the hscal
wear ending June 80, 1891, the United
States used a total of 3,243,OOO,-
900 gallons of water. Had payments
been made by the Federal Govern
ment at the rate charged other con-
sumers, the amount involved would
represent return on the money IN
vested of 2.44 per cent. II 1t be as
sumed that return on capital IN
vested of 312 per cent be a reason
able one, it is evident that instead OF
receiving its water free the United
States has, in effect, paid approx
mately 40 per cent more for the
water which 1t has used than nave
other consumers in the City OF
Washington"
The Ma jority Owners Rights.
Washingtonians who for many years
have pointed out the inequitable con-
ditionS resulting from complete with
drawal by the Federal Government
from financial participation in main
tenance and development Of the water
plant have never contended that the
United States Is not entitled to a re
turn" on its investment in the water
plant.
They have emphasized the obvious
unfairneSs OF the unique and unprece-
dented situation which finds the
majority owner of the water plant the
local community bearing all the costs
while the minority owner Of the plant
(the Federal Government) contributes
nothing. but receives its water free.
The Sl2411,315.64 capital investment
IN plant claimed for the United States
by the engineer office has been subject
to many attacks in the past. and more
recently has been criticized by the
United States Bureau OF Efficiency.
which, within the past wear, attacked
the methods by which it is arrived at
The figure. claimed as capital invest
ment. includes net only money con-
tributed for maintenance OF the plant
by the United States prior to 1916-and
operating costs are never inquired as
capital investment-but also includes
money spent prior to 1853 on long since
obsolete spring water mains o-lgi-
nally built to pipe water to the Capital
in the early days of the city and at
least $4,000, 900 spent prior to 1880 on
q plant that was obsolescent after 20
years of use.
Capital Investment Incorrect.
Such facts should be sufficient to con-
demn the engineers claim for a return
on such a figure. To them may be
added the bureaus contention that 1t
Is impossible to arrive at valuation
of the plant upon which an allowable
return could be. computed until &C
cepted practices Of accountancy. making
allowance for depreciation. operating
costs, etc, are adopted.
But there are other matters that claim
attention in the study OF the water sys-
tenn. They may be divided and enumer-
ated as follows:
l. Who owns" the water system?
2. History of the method followed
by the United States in taking in the
local community as partner IN the
construction and maintenance OF the
water plant and then withdrawing as
q contributor, but retaining control and
fixinp the amount that the local COM
munity shall annually invest in the wa
ter plant and spend on its maintenance.
g. The normal objectives OF mu-
nicipally owned water plant. and now
the local community fails to reach the
most important of them-loW water
rates-under the present system.
4. Some of the complications that
are now threatened by the policy OF
enlarging the water plant to supply
water to adjacent areas in Maryland
and Virginia.
Ownership Of the Water Plant
Who owns" the water plant?
The ownership, of course, is eqult-
able only as far as the local COM
nunity is concerned. for the United
States retains title to and control OF
the plant
neer,s figures, division OF equitable
ownership is found that makes the
local community the owner OF at least
two-thirds of the modern plant. while
the United States owns a third.
A financial statement prepared as OF
June, 1880. by the Engineer once OF
the War Department.. which controis
the supply branch. shows that from .ne
beginning down to that date the amount
spent on construction. both supply ana
distribution. was $35,0l2,6l1. OF this
sum the United States had put In
s10. .s64 sol. The District of Columbia.
through general revenues, supplied
So 07e.I7S.l1 and through the Water
Department S14,975,631.S9. or a total
from these two local sources OF VA
O47,810. The figure given tor the wa
ter Department includes what 1t mas
spent on construction of the dlstrlou-
ton branch under its own control as
well as what 1t has put into the portlon
of the system under Federal control.
ID. c. Chief Contributor.
Under the heading of maintenance
the statement shows total expended
Of sl8,08l, ,420.41. apportioned as fol-
lows: United States, S1.222, ,3l6.72; DIS
trict government, S955 5,473.l8, and
Water Department, sl5,s03 ,6S05l. Be-
fore the present system of supply from
Great Falls was begun, in 1858, the
GouArnnnent had installed some spring.