Practically nothing has been accomplished toward putting into effect the law under which the Arlington Sanitary District in Virginia was established in 1920. This district is under the board of supervisors of Arlington County. It is probable that little progress will be made until amended legislation welds the district into a cohesive unit instead of leaving it as a collection of separate sub-districts each with the power of voting on its own bond issues. Fixed charges are to be borne on the tax rate of the sub-district issuing the bonds. Incorporated towns are excluded from the operation of the law.

The Greater Winnipeg Water District, comprising Winnipeg and parts of eight other municipalities, with a population of about 220,000 was chartered in 1913 by the Manitoba legislature. The district covers an area of 52.36 square miles. General control is vested in an administration board composed of elective officals of the municipalities. A board of three commissioners, appointed by the administration board, has actual charge of the district management. Water is sold in bulk, at a uniform price, to the several communities. The district does not own the distribution systems within its limits. Water receipts are applied first to maintenance and operating costs and secondly to reduction of the levy made to meet fixed charges. Taxes are levied on land values only, which values are determined by an "Equalized Assessment Board." The enabling act required a referendum before becoming effective.

In 1924 the British Columbia legislature passed an act establishing the Greater Vancouver Water District, subject to a favorable referendum. The district comprises Vancouver, the Corporation of Point Grey and the Corporation of the District of South Vancouver. Water will be furnished wholesale to the constituent communities. Existing distribution systems are not to be brought under district control but purchase of the Vancouver supply works is contemplated. Administration will be in the hands of a board appointed by the municipal councils, together with one member chosen by the lieutenant governor. A commission of not more than three members, appointed by the administration board subject to approval of the lieutenant governor, will undertake the details of management. All necessary powers are granted for the establishment and operation of a comprehensive water supply system. Water rates will cover fixed charges as well as maintenance and operating ex

penses. Bond issues must be approved by the lieutenant governor. Water may be sold to communities outside the district.

Windsor and seven other municipalities in Ontario form the Essex Border Utilities District, having a population of approximately 75,000. This union was chartered in 1916. Control is administered by a commission elected every three years, the mayors of the several municipalities serving as ex-officio members. One of the principal objects of the district is to furnish a supply of filtered water, which will be delivered wholesale to the two existing systems. The commission cannot proceed with any project without the consent of the voters. General and operating expenses are borne by the municipalities in proportion to the number of elective representatives they have on the commission. The commission issues its own bonds. Apportionment of fixed charges is effected upon the basis of benefit received, the method of determination differing naturally with the character of project carried out.

Details for new legislation

Water district legislation should be as simple as possible and yet provide the necessities for effective construction and operation of the contemplated projects. The more nearly the usual powers given municipalities, with respect to control of water supply and distribution, can be approached, the greater is the prospect of success and facility in handling the affairs of a water district.

Perhaps nothing is so detrimental to a water district as outside. interference with its management. This does not refer to the general regulation exercised by state agencies, but to the measure of control sometimes given to a neighboring political subdivision. Division of responsibility will not give better results in this than in any other undertaking. Another feature of some enabling acts likely to give trouble is the lack of unity and uniformity caused by dividing the district into sub-districts having power to initiate or obstruct improvements within their borders.

More will be accomplished by a water district, as a general rule, if there is no referendum on the projects to be carried out or on the question of creating indebtedness. A capable commission in charge of a district should have the right, wherever constitutionally possible, to prosecute its work unhampered by the decisions of an emotional

and perhaps uninformed electorate. Many existing districts would have made little progress if their affairs had been subject to popular control. Some undoubtedly owe even their establishment to the absence of a referendum.

The methods available generally for financing the work of water districts are the same as those used by municipalities. A rational and equitable plan is important in both cases. The scheme applicable to a particular situation depends naturally on the make-up of the district, existing local methods of financing, and the nature of the project. More latitude is usually possible where there are no existing water systems, or where all existing distribution systems are to be acquired, than in a district organized to supply distribution systems that are to remain under local ownership. In any event, it will be necessary generally to issue bonds in order to have funds for construction work available at all times. It is well to meet fixed charges by a combination of taxes and assessments, and maintenance and operating expenses by rates for service. District authorities should possess power to issue their own bonds, determine the amount to be raised each year by tax levy, and fix and collect their own assessments and charges for service.

Enabling acts for water districts should contain provisions facilitating the annexation of additional area without the necessity for further legislation, in order that conditions similar to those causing formation of the original district may be taken care of without delay whenever they become established in adjacent territory.

Recognition of the practicability and efficacy of coöperation in the solution of many problems of water supply and distribution is fast gaining ground. The facts that most existing water districts have been established at comparatively recent dates, and that many other joint projects have been under consideration, bear witness to this statement.

CHAPTER XXIV

OPERATING PRACTICE

Practice varies widely in operating activity, doubtless due in some cases to a difference in the size of the cities and in other cases to a difference in climatic or social conditions. In order to ascertain the variations in practice, 54 representative water works were asked to explain how they handled these problems. What follows is a summary of their reports.1

Preventing waste by free consumers

Inquiry among the 54 representative water works showed that 34 works furnished no free water or free water only for fire protection, street sprinkling and sewer flushing. In some of these cases. the rates are very low for some city departments, and metering and frequent inspection are generally considered necessary to prevent serious waste.

In some states water companies are forbidden by the public utility commissions to furnish free water. Opposition to free water is reported to be increasing as the public learns that, speaking literally, there is no such thing as free water, because the cost of water furnished without charge to any public or private consumer must be paid for by somebody else. Where water is furnished free, the rate structure is likely to be unbalanced.

1In the preparation of this Chapter replies were received from the following cities: Altoona, Pa.; Ashland, Ky.; Atlanta, Ga.; Bangor, Me.; Brantford, Ont.; Buffalo, N. Y. (suburbs); Burlington, Ia.; Cairo, Ill.; Canton, O.; Champaign, Ill.; Charleston, S. C.; Charleston, W. Va.; Chattanooga, Tenn.; Clarksburg, W. Va.; Coeur d'Alene, Idaho; Covington, Ky.; Danville, Ill.; Davenport, Ia.; Des Moines, Ia.; Detroit, Mich.; Duluth, Minn.; Edmonton, Alba.; Flint, Mich.; Greenville, S. C.; Holyoke, Mass.; Louisville, Ky.; Lynchburg, Va.; Madison, Wis., Minneapolis, Minn.; Mobile, Ala.; Nashville, Tenn.; New Bedford, Mass.; Norfolk, Va.; Oakland, Calif.; Peterborough, Ont.; Quincy, Ill.; Reading, Pa.; Richmond, Ind.; Rochester, N. Y.; St. Catherines, Ont.; Sedalia, Mo.; Sioux City, Ia.; South Bend, Ind.; Spartanburg, S. C.; Springfield, Mass. ; Superior, Wis. ; Terre Haute, Ind.; Toledo, O.; Utica, N. Y.; Vicksburg, Miss.; Wilkinsburg, Pa.; Worcester, Mass.; York, Pa.

Where water is furnished free to public and eleemosynary institutions, a number of water works restrict the quantity furnished free to each consumer to a specified quantity and charge for any excess above this quantity. For example, churches in Altoona get 8000 cubic feet free semi-annually, schools in Champaign get 33,000 gallons per room per year free, and the City of Chattanooga gets 5,000,000 gallons per month free, but any excess over these quantities is charged for. In most cases where a large quantity of free water is furnished, it is metered and fair coöperation is given by the free consumers to the water works in restricting waste. A few water works report serious waste of free water and inability to obtain help in checking it from the free consumers.

Periods of adequacy and serviceability assumed in water works design

In designing new water works and extensions to existing works, there is a sharp distinction drawn in many problems between the period of serviceability of some portion of a plant and the period during which it will be adequate for the demands upon it, without extension or reinforcement. This distinction is clearly drawn by some water works officials who answered inquiries as to their experience in these matters, while other officials did not differentiate between the two phases of the subject. Consequently the summary of their replies is necessarily general.

The period of serviceability of the parts of a water works were reported as follows: source of supply, twenty-five to forty years; distribution reservoirs, twenty to fifty years; mains, fifty to one. hundred years; galvanized service pipes, twenty-five to thirty years; boilers, twenty-five years; pumps, twenty-five to thirtyfive years.

The period of adequacy is determined by the rate of increase of consumption and the general character of the whole water works plant. The works taken as a whole are estimated to have an average period of adequacy of twenty to thirty years by most of the officials furnishing information on the subject, the highest estimate being fifty years. In laying mains in a distribution system that can be reinforced readily, the general opinion seems to be that the added capacity should provide for about ten years' growth, additional pumping equipment should be adequate for fifteen years' growth, and standpipes for twenty-five years' growth.