Evening star., 1932-06-03

was SpcIll Ill ONcT tWcllty years pIiOt
to 1880 upon the original aqueduct,
which even in 1880 had suffered over
twenty years of depreciation in value.
When the United States made the
District Of Columbia an involuntary
partner it put into the partnership not
q S3,500.000 plant but a plant depre-
ciated by more than IS years of use,
and which had become entirely made
quate to meet the increased needs Of
national and local water users. 1t was
to help TO meet the expenses Of neces-
sarily enlarged new system that the
District of Columbia was made a half
partner. tFor the Lydecker tunnel the
District paid half the cost. but fer a
long time received no additional water,
due to the delay in making the tunnel
available fer use.)
In accounting for the development
of the water system the United States
is to be credited, not with S3,500.0OO
of original plant, but with the depre-
ciated. inadequate and obsolescent plant
which after 1882 1t actually contributed
to the United States-District Of Colum-
bia partnership.
The Bureau of Efficiency incorporated
in its recent report on the water sys-
tenn the financial statement of the
Army Engineer Corps, showing total
expenditures for construction and main
tenance of the system as a whole from
the beginning down to 1890 (which fig-
ures were used in the beginning Of this
article).
In presenting these figures the Eff
cheney Bureau advances the view that
the annual lump-sum payment Con-
gress has made since 1925, in lieu OF
propOrtionate contribution. has been fer
all expenses of the District, "and no por-
ton was allocated to the water supply
or ether projects
For the fiscal years 1882 to 1920,
inclusive" the Efficiency Bureau stated,
the cost of major extensions to the
sy stem were charged half to the Federal
Government and half to the District of
Columbia: for the fiscal years 1921 to
1924. inclusive the Federal Government
contributed 40 per cent. For the fiscal
years 1925 to 1880 the entire cost was
charged to the District of Columbia but
each year the Federal Government made
lump-sum contribution of 100000
in lieu CT the proportionate contribution
formerly made. This contribution was
for all expenses of the District, and no
portion was allocated to the water sup
ply or other projects. Although the Dis
trict government has paid its proper
tionate share of the cost of construc-
ton of all of the properties acquired for
the water supply system since 1882. the
title to these properties is in the name
of the United States
Referring further ON its report to the
apportionment Of funds spent On the
water system. the bureau commented
as follows:
THE statement by the Corps of En-
all expenditures which have been made
by the United States have been capi-
talized to fix the value of the property
of the Federal Government.
Under this method during the years the
Federal Government contributed to the
support of the District Of Columbia on
the $3.50 and 40-60 bases, SO or 40 per
cent Of the expenditures by the Corps
Of Engineers and the Water Departn ent
for construction and maintenance has
been added to the investment of the
United States. In like manner each
yeare since the Federal Government
has been contributing lump sum a
percentage representing the ratio of
the lump-sum contribution to the total
expenditures for the District of Colum-
bia has been added to the investment Of
the Federal Government.
q TIE act Of Congress approved June
T. 1924 (43 Stat, 539), changed the
basis cf the Federal contribution to the
District OF Columbia from 40 per cent
OF the amounts expended to a lump
sum. 1t provides that any revenue then
required by law to be credited to the
District of Columbia and the United
States in the same proportion each con-
tributed to the activity or source from
whence such revenue was derived shall
be credited wholly to the District of
Columbia. excepting revenue arising as
the result of the expenditure of appro-
priaticns made for the fiscal year 1924
and prior fiscal years. The action of
the Corps of Engineers treating part of
Investments made from appropriations
since 1924 is incorrect because the con-
tributions on the lump sum basis are
clearly outright contributions to the
District of Columbia
Attacks Basis of Figures.
In letter OF transmittal accompany
ing its report the Efficiency Bureau
suggests that investments of the Fed
eral Government. District government
and Water Department in the capital
assets of the water system since 1924
be calculated on a different basis
The efficiency report further points
out that the financial statement re-
ferred to presents, both for the supply
and distribution systems the total that
has been spent for capital outlays, with
no deductions for obsolete or abandoned
property, and in the conclusions one of
the bureaus recommendations Ii that
an appraisal be made of all the prop
critics of the water system in order to
determine the cost of water and the
amount Of depreciation chargeable to
the cost of operations.
While the Federal Government has a
certain investment in construction of
the system thus far, the construction
work done between 1923 and 1928 in
enlarging the plant. the greater part of
which was paid for by the District, is
likely to afford an adequate supply for
a good many years. To go on indefi-
nitely, therefore, operating the system
entirely out of local water revenues
means furnishing the Government with
all the water it needs without any i'm
mediate prospect of further expense to
the Government
History of Ownership.
Going back to the founding of this
city as the seat of Government, 1t Is
found that water supply was one of the
benefits which it was expected the Ma
tional Government would furnish In
of and from part of the
proceeds of the sale of the building lots
which the original owners of the soil