Evening star., 1932-06-03

from 1882 on TO become q part txner
In the building Up Of the water system
on the half-and-haH basis SO far as
the cost Of the tunnel from GEORGETOWN
to Mcmillan Park and other plant ex-
penditureS from taxes were concerned
The community's percentage Of plant
was increased also by the
application of water rent surpluses
above the cost Of maintenance to the
development Of the plant, especially the
system.
The act Of July is. 1852. authorizing
the hrst large extension of the system,
called for raising the dam Ut Great
Falls and continuing 1t to the Virginia
shore: the building OF the tunnel from
Park, near Soldiers Home: for the new
join the reservoir to the distribution
system.
District Borrowed Money From U. s.
One-half the cost of this project was
required to be repaid to the United
States by the District Water Depart
ment. with interest at per cent. Ap-
were made annually from
the funds OF the Water Department to-
ward this obligation, and in 1897 Con-
gress directed that $l04, 1884 be taken
fran the general revenues Of the Dis
trtct to close out this debt
Between 1903 and 1905 the first A.
tration plant was built at Mcmillan
Park. followed In 19l0-ll by the in
stallation OF coagulating plant near
the Dalecarlia Reservoir to improve the
quality and appearance Of the water.
Another Big Job Undertaken.
Not long after the abandonment Of
the half-and-half plan Of meeting gen.
eFal expenses Of the city another big
project for increasing the water supply
plant, estimated to cost more than
81. 500, 600, was begun. Under this prof.
ect there has been built since 1928 q
new conduit. paralleling the old one
from the Falls to Dalecarlia; a second
fltratiOn plant on Conduit road near
the District Line; q hydroelectric plant
vest Of the new filtration plant for
pumping filtered water; q pumping sta
tion and two new storage reservoirs
Fer the first two years that this
project was under construction District
were on the 6040 basis
but the greater part Of the cost Of this
latest enlargement Of the water supply
was appropriated after the lump-sum
practice of Federal contribution in Dis
trict appropriation bills began. II 1t Is
that from 1925 on, when the
lump-sum policy was inaugurated, the
Federal Government contributed toward
of the new part of the
water supply system In whatever ratio
the lump sum bore to the total Of Dis
rlct appropriations each year. 1t would
still mean that the District paid sub
more than so per cent of the
total OF s8,500,000 appropriated from
1928 to 1927. inclusive. on the water
supply enlargement project
In the two fiscal years of 1923 and
1924 annual allotments Of 81 5000 600
were made for work on the new water
supply project, or . total Of $4,000, 900.
With the 60-40 ratio still in effect the
District paid 81 800 900 of this amount.
The United States Engineer Corps in
report prepared two years ago on the
amounts expended in developing the
water supply system pointed out that
N 1925 the first Federal lump sum of
10000 represented a fraction over
81 per cent Of the total expenses Of
he District. If figured therefore, that
of the 81 100000 appropriated in 1925
or continuing the water supply project.
he United States paid $465 ass 10 and
he District $l,034, 5443O
In 1925 the appropriation for con-
lhulng work on the water project was
" 500 900. Pointing out that the lump
ium that year represented a fraction
over so per cent Of District expenses.
ne report placed the United States
,hare of the water supply item at s753,-
~ and the District the remaining
|l,746,722
In 1927 $l,500.0O0 was appropriated
or the water project. and the Federal
ump sum was figured as something
)ver ~ per cent of that years expenses
l'he Engineer report. therefore, placed
he United States share of the water
'upply item 1T s4os, ,4o2 and the District
Il .09l 59S
Adding up these apportionments. II
IS found that of the $500, 900 appro-
'riated toward eniargins the water SUP.
ply system between 1895 and 1927, in
'iusive. under the lump-sum practice
II Federal contribution. the District
'aid $3.872,864.30 and the United States
j ,621.lS5.70. But. as mentioned above,
he Bureau Of Efficiency contests this.
:iaiming that the United States with
rev from participation in construction
alto Of appropriation.
Inc whole tendency since 1890 has
,een to reduce the Nations percentage
of plant ownership that percentage be-
ng measured by the comparative
mounts spent for construction OF the
system as whole by District taxpayers
and water users on the one side and
oy the United States on the other.
The change In 1922 from $3.50 to the
1910 ratio of financing the National
capital, followed few years later bv
he Introduction of the $4,000, 900 lump
um contribution (changed in the last
,Wo years to $4,000, 0OO) has had the
meet OF accentuating this tendency in
me upbuilding Of the water facilities.
U. S. Shifts Burden.
Thus. having started the water plant
as a national project, the Fed
.ral Government in 1880 made the local
community partner in the enterprise,
lhen. as the years went by, with grad
lal enlargement Of the system, the local
,omm unity was required to become the
'rlIcipai owner. as measured BY
amounts spent on construction.
While continuing to be a heavy CON-
'umer Of water. the United States in
'ecent years has withdrawn from nar-
icipation in the annual maintenance
:harges Of the water service by reouir-
ng the operating expenses of both the
'upply and distribution systems to be
,alo since 1915 from the revenues Of
me local Water Department, collected
rom private consumers.
According to figures Of the Water
department. In the fiscal year 1880 the
various groups Of private consumers.
%no pay the revenue which maintains
me ehtlre system, used 16,421,5 56S, ,0Oe
satons g Ion out OF total consumption Of
.S,soO,1 1oo.0oo' In other words, those
sno pay the operating expenses of the
'ystem use only a little more than hall
y the total quantity.
The Water Department report sives
he Federal Government consumnt,on