Page images
PDF
EPUB

rule, however, cities are free to establish rates for consumers outside their boundaries. Sometimes this is done by the water commission and sometimes by city ordinance.

There are two diametrically opposite opinions among water works managers regarding rates charged by municipal works to consumers outside the city. One view was stated as follows: "Our commission, realizing that the prosperity of the community surrounding the city is, to a greater or less extent, dependent upon the city itself, makes no extra charge for water consumed by customers outside the city. They do, however, insist upon a deposit being made to guarantee the payment of the bill and the protection of the property of the commission, as well as the observance of the commission's regulations." Eight cities owning their water works reported substantially this practice; two charge the same rates for commercial and industrial supplies, but double the city rates for residential supplies.

The opposite view is explained by the manager of a municipal water works as follows: "An increased charge to out-of-town consumers is warranted because the taxpayers of the city have borne the original cost and upkeep of the water works, for which out-of-town consumers have never been taxed." A somewhat similar opinion from a municipal water works in another section of the country reads:

Water is supplied to customers outside city limits at double the city rate for the reason that such consumers bear no part of the tax burden of the City. As they receive practically all benefits of the city except schooling, they should be required, when getting their water from the municipal department, to pay for such service at a higher rate than that charged to city taxpayers.

Thirteen of the municipal water works questioned followed this practice.

As a rule private companies are required by public utility commissions to charge the same rates to consumers outside and inside the city, except there is a tendency to permit an increased rate for outof-town consumers supplied by booster-pumping.

Locating leaks in mains and services

In the larger of the 54 cities asked to explain their methods of detecting leaks in main and services, there is generally some kind of an organization engaged mainly or exclusively in the work. The investigation is most often conducted by making pitometer surveys

to ascertain the districts where the leakage is greatest, and then searching for the individual leaks in such districts by means of one or more of the different leak detectors to be procured from dealers in water works specialties, or by inspection, or by the aid of steel bars driven though the earth until they touch the main. These bars are useful as a sounding post on which to place a leak detector and when they are withdrawn the presence of a leak where they were driven is revealed by the appearance of their lower end. Experienced men are reported to be able to locate leaks so closely with these devices that it is rarely necessary to open more than one pit to reach the leak.

In some of the large water works and a majority of the small ones which reported making a systematic, uninterrupted search for leaks, the district system of investigation is followed. The valves on all lines feeding a small district are closed at a time of low consumption, and water is fed into the district shut off in this way by hose connecting a hydrant on each side of one of the closed valves. A meter in the hose line indicates the quantity of water passing into the district. If the draft is large, leaks are sought with the aid of leak detectors. At Superior, Wis., a unique test for service pipes is employed in connection with the district system. The meter of a service is disconnected, the curb cock closed, and an attempt is made to force water through the pipe with a hand pump from the point of disconnection toward the main.

In about half the cities, no special routine is followed in seeking for leaks, because any large leakage is revealed on the surface or in neighboring cellars and sewers. Several cities inspect the flow in sewers at least once a year, to obtain warning of leakage. At Wilkinsburg, Pa., where an unusually heavy pressure is carried on the street mains, all new services are laid inside a 4-inch sewer pipe so that any leakage will appear at the curb box.

How far should leakage prevention work be carried?

Twenty out of the 54 water works interrogated were without definite views on this subject, generally because very little leakage had been detected on their plants and no thought had been given to the subject.

One publicly owned and four privately owned works, all completely

metered, each of which stops every leak as soon as it is detected, increase their regular efforts to detect leakage whenever the unaccounted for water exceeds 15 to 25 per cent of the total supply, the 25 per cent limit being at a plant where the street main pressure is exceptionally high.

Several plants report that the allowable expenditure for detecting and stopping leaks depends largely on the ratio of the demand for water to the total available supply. Several plants consider it practicable to determine a maximum permissible leakage per mile of main before making a special effort to stop such leakage, but only one such limit was named, 2000 gallons per mile of pipe per twentyfour hours, which is low even for 6-inch pipe that has been in service for some years.

Most water works report that when leaks are detected they are stopped immediately, for one or both of two reasons. The first is that it pays to keep leakage to a minimum because there is then no question about how the supply is being distributed and the personnel is kept keyed up to efficiency and economy of operation. The second reason is that experience shows little leaks sometimes become large leaks, undermining pavements, causing foundations to settle and seeping into cellars, all causing considerable expense for repairs and unpleasant liability to damage suits.

Extensions of mains

The municipally owned plants among the 54 water works asked to explain their practice in making extensions of mains follow two general procedures. One class lays extensions where directed by the city council or water board, in a few instances only when the city engineer certifies to the need of the extension. The cost is met in some cities wholly out of the water works funds, in other cities wholly by local assessment on the property benefitted, and in other cities by local assessment for a 6-inch main and from water works funds for the excess cost when a main larger than 6 inches is laid. In a few States the procedure is fixed by statute. The cost of large mains is quite generally met by bonds.

In the second class of municipal works extensions are made only when the annual revenue from parties ready to take water will equal a definite percentage of the cost of installation, or when the length of

new main per house served does not exceed 100 feet or some other established unit. The annual revenue from an extension must equal 20 per cent of the cost in two cities, 10 per cent in seven, 8 per cent in two and 6 per cent in one; one city requires 4 per cent from extensions within the city and 15 per cent from those outside its limits.

Both privately and publicly owned works lay mains before permanent pavements are put down in undeveloped sections, if it seems probable that consumers will spring up along these streets in the near future.

Extensions of mains by privately owned water works are made as required by contract with the city, or as stipulated in the regulations of public utility commissions, or by agreement with prospective consumers. The rates these companies are permitted to charge are based, in a general way, on the investment in the plants and the operating expenses, and unprofitable extensions to serve a few consumers are not regarded as wholly fair to the great majority of water takers. Hence some of the privately owned water works require a larger percentage of the cost of extensions to be returned annually from consumers on such extensions than is the average custom with municipally owned works, which, as part of the city establishment, are justified in assisting in any reasonable way the increase in settled property paying domiciliary taxes.

In some cases, water companies make extensions when the city contracts for one hydrant for a unit length of main, such as 365 or 500 feet; in other cases extensions are made when the city contracts for one hydrant per block served and, in addition, there is an assured annual return of a specified sum, or a specified minimum number of consumers in each block to be served by the extension.

Extensions for real estate developments are made by both municipally and privately owned plants only at the expense of the land owners, who have their investment returned in whole or in part in various ways. A privately owned plant reported the following method:

In real estate developments, the water company installs pipe lines of sufficient capacity for fire protection at the expense of the real estate company, and returns the cost of the extension without interest to the realty company on the basis of half of the gross revenue received each year along the extensions for a period not exceeding fifteen years, but in no case is the refund greater than the original amount advanced by the realty company.

A municipally owned plant reports:

A contract is made with the land company under which the department lays the main at actual cost plus 10 per cent for the use of tools and for supervision, and the land company reimburses the department on this basis. Then as customers are obtained, a sum stipulated in the contract is returned to the land company for each of these customers.

Relations between water works and local health officers

Twenty years ago complaints by water works officials of unwarranted interference with their work by local health officers were rather frequent, but since then a great change in the relations between these groups has evidently taken place, for 52 out of the 54 water works asked for opinions on the subject are strongly in favor of close coöperation of water works and health officials. The two exceptions reported that they were operating under unusual conditions which made such coöperation unnecessary in their cases.

The general opinion was expressed concisely by the following letter: The health department is the lawful guardian of the public health, but it cannot make a healthy community with a polluted water supply. It can assist the water department in getting necessary appropriations for improving and maintaining a safe water supply. The water works superintendent has more to gain by cooperation with a good health department than he can give to the latter by his coöperation.

[ocr errors]

The reports indicate that close coöperation has been of substantial help in the following ways: (1) Preventing pollution of water in watersheds; (2) investigating promptly cases of typhoid fever and determining their origin; (3) improving the water-supply plumbing regulations; (4) improving public health conditions by meter readers reporting unsanitary conditions observed in their rounds; (5) providing laboratory services and making check analyses; (6) counteracting unwarranted public attacks on the quality of the water supply; (7) investigating complaints of bad water; (8) preventing cross-connections with mains carrying polluted water; (9), securing the abandonment of dangerous wells; (10) affording health officers an opportunity to become familiar with water works management; (11) insuring utmost protection of quality of supply when it is necessary to by-pass filters or use temporarily some water of questionable quality; (12) insuring necessary water to abate certain nuisances when discovered by health inspectors; (13) insuring proper handling of health problems when water is shut off for nonpayment of bills.

« PreviousContinue »