Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1954-03-05
Stronger Bill
On Water Firms
Goes 10 House
Burs Collection Of
Cost of Mains
From Customers
BY O Stor Stoff Correspondent

strengthened version of q bill
to place more restrictions or
privately owned water companies
was reported to the House Of
Delegates today. after getting
committee clearance.
The bill of Delegate Omel
Hirst OF Fairfax bore two amend.
ments-one by the patron anC
the other by Alexandria Delegate
ArmiSteac Boothe-as the com.
mittee approved it yesterday
The measure appeared to be
stronger than it was in its
original form.
Other developments included
The Donovan bill to give af-
fected property owners more con-
troll over rezoning action taken
by local governing bodies was re-
ferred to a House subcommittee
after a delegation of Fairfax
civic leaders Endorsed the pro-
poSal.
The Senate passed ans sent
to the Governor a bill by Dele
gates HirSt and John c. Webb.
also Of Fairfax. to require water
companies to publicize in more
detail proposed changes in rates
and fees.
Pay for Mains Affected.
The bill to restrict water COM
panieS would prohibit the firms
from requiring customers, as a
condition of serving them, to
pay for the costs of water mains.
An amendment by Mr.. Boothe
would permit those practices, If
the State Corporation Commits
sion gave its approval.
Mr.. Hirst's amendment, how
ever, adds new language which
says the contributed capital
that is, water mains paid for
by customers-could not be in
cluded in the rate base for the
purpose Of figuring depreciation
or fair earnings on investment.
The only exception to this
would be those companies that
refund the cost of the mains to
customers on a pro-rata basis,
as other customers hook on.
Mr.. Hirst had complained
that the State Corporation Com
mission allows the water COM
panies to include facilities that
never cost them anything as
capital investments on which q
fair return is based in setting
rates. Furthermore. he charged,
the State allows the companies
to mark of as losses the de-
probation on these contributed
facilities.
Boothe AbstainS From Vote.
After a hearing attended by
Fairfax citizens earlier this week,
the General Laws Committee
designated Mr.. Boothe as a sub
committee to draft objections to
the bill.
Mr.. Boothe reiterated yester-
day that his Alexandria law firm
represents the Virginia Water
Co. and, because of his interest
in the subject. he would refrain
from voting on the bill. He did
not vote when the committee
reported the amended version.
In offering his amendment, Mr..
Hirst said it was designed so the
water companies cannot reap
what they have not sown."
Mr.. Boothe repeated an earlier
statement that he approved the
purpose OF the bill but objected
to taking away certain powers
of the State Corporation Com
mission.
I'm not opposing the bill. but
1t was very bad legislation in it's
original FORM" he said.
Mr.. Webb told the commit
tee: You're not taking anything
away from the commission. You
would simply be defining more
clearly the lines within which it
can operate"
Delegate Ernest Robertson of
Roanoke County said it has been
his experience that when the
sec sends an investigator to
examine rate requests of utilities
sit has never been in favor of the
customers"
Duress Methods Charged!
Mr.. Webb said individual GUS
toners, as we'll as subdivision
developers. are compelled to paw
for. or give, the water mains
under dureSs-"under the threat
OF not getting service"
Former State Senator Andrew
w. Clarke. who said he repre-
sented a group of Fairfax County
real estate developers and prop
erty-owners. was the only oppo-
nent at the public hearing before
another committee on the coming
protest bill.
The House Counties, Cities and
Towns Committee listened to his
views as well as those of county
civic leaders on the bill of Sem
ator' John A. K. Donovan of
Fairfax.
The measure would require a
two-thirds vote of the county
supervisors before a coming
change could be made whenever
protests were signed by the own
ers Of at least 20 per cent of the
area affected or of property
within 500 feet Of the area. This
would mean five of the seven
supervisors in Fairfax, under
such circumstances.
Seen as Confiscation.
Mr.. Clarke branded the pro-
posal as conf1scation of private
property. The absence of a re-
quirement that signatures must
be notarized. he said, would leave
the way open for persons from
10 miles away" to sign the pro-
tests. He also said it might be
unconstitutional to delegate the