The City vs. the Water Company

The application of the water company for a permanent injunction restraining the city from enforcing the ordinance of December 16th last, is one more step in the evolution of the water rates question. It is one of the possible results of the passage of the water rates ordinance which was by no means unforeseen when that ordinance was enacted. Let it be hoped, therefore, that the issue will be met by the city and the strongest possible case put up by the city in the interest of its citizens, who are compelled to pay extortionate rates for water. If at the end it shall be determined that the city is so bound by the act of the legislature under which the company was organized and the franchise granted the company that there is no relief from the present exorbitant charges for water while the water supply remains under private ownership, then one more step in the direction of municipal ownership will have been taken. There are so many who believe municipal ownership to be the only ultimate satisfactory solution of the problem that even though the injunction prayed for be given the water company, there will be no discouragement in such an outcome of the present situation. If the permanent injunction be granted the company, it will be proof conclusive to the doubtful ones that no relief is to be looked for outside of public ownership. Such a decision will undoubtedly strengthen the advocates of city ownership by incorporating into their ranks most of those who have felt that there was a possibility of getting lower rates from the present company. A decision against the ordinance, therefore, will be likely to greatly strengthen the demand for the alternative solution of the question.

If the people must continue to pay the present rates for an indefinite period, they would far better buy the plant and use the savings which would accrue under city ownership to create a sinking fund with which to pay for the plant. This is a feasible proposition, for it has been shown that the city could with what it could save in expenses each year pay for the plant in somewhere from fourteen to twenty years. Thus by continuing present charges for water, the city would ultimately own its water works, whereas its citizens may continue to pay present rates to the company forever and then have nothing to show for the outlay.

It does not follow, of course, that this would be the best plan for the city to pursue in the purchase of the waterworks plant, but it shows how desirable it is for the city to stop the present extortion. A better way, in all probability, would be for the city if it be decided to purchase the waterworks to reduce rates to consumers at once and raise a portion of the amount which the plant costs by tax each year. Or if this method be not satisfactory then the city might be bonded for the amount of the purchase price and the same be treated as a permanent debt upon which the city shall pay interest alone but none of the principal. But whatever the method deemed best for the city to pursue in buying the plant, there should be no unnecessary delay in purchasing, if the water company obtains the permanent injunction it is asking for.