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. 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. CHAPTER XXV ANNUAL FIRE LOSSES, UNITED STATES AND ELSEWHERE Why do cities in the United States and Canada find it necessary, in order to hold the annual fire loss within bounds, to provide water supplies and fire departments so greatly in excess of those found necessary in European cities? Yet, in spite of these much stronger fire protection facilities in this country than abroad, the fire loss in the United States and Canada is considerably greater than in foreign. countries. A few years ago an official of the London Fire Brigade made a study of the fire departments and water supplies of the larger American cities and compared them with the corresponding features in his own city. In reply to a question as to structural conditions in London, he stated that building code requirements in that city and, he believed, in other British cities, for many years past had been such that heights of existing buildings do not exceed six stories, there are no such excessive areas as are found in this country, and perhaps most vital of all, openings in the floors are so protected by fire resistive partitions and doors as to prevent the spread of fire vertically through the building. The result is that fires almost never spread from one building to another, and seldom involve more than one floor. There are, of course, other factors which must be considered in comparing fire losses, but the fundamental difference in the control of fire here and abroad lies in the provisions, over a long period of years, for suitable safeguards in building construction. There are in this country, it is true, many buildings, mercantile and industrial, in which the well understood principles for the control of fire have been applied, including protection to floor and window openings, and the installation of automatic sprinklers and other extinguishing devices. The fire record of these buildings, as a class, furnishes ample evidence of the effectiveness of such protection. Certain city building codes require compliance with these principles, at least in some classes of occupancy, but these requirements apply in the main only to new construction. In all our American cities the majority of buildings are of such character as to offer little resistance to the spread of fire. |