.
The Water Question
Reply of
PRESIDENT TEV1S
OF
BAY CITES WATER CO.
TO
MR. CHICKERING
LIBRARY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
SANTA BARH*i?\
/ /
REPLY OF PRESIDENT TEVIS TO
MR. CHICftERING.
W. H. CHICKERING ESQ.,
Attorney for the Contra Costa Water Company,
Oakland, California.
SIR:
There appeared in the Oakland newspapers of January
3. 190-.. a c( mmunirati' n. sirned with y ur name, in which
you address t< me certain que:-tkns to which you may or
may TV t have expected a rep y.
As the questi' ns were definitely framed, and concerned
the matter of the pn p- sed municipal water plant which the
representatives of your city have se'ected as a suitab'e plant
to be purchased by the citizens of Oakland, I, now the bond
ordinance having finally passed, answer your questions in
detail.
In prefacing my replies, however, I will say that your
questions do not come to me in the aspect of a sincere request
for information sought for proper purposes. Your "letter"
was not sent to me; indeed, the first and only knowledge I
have ever had of its existence was when my attention was
called to its appearance in the Oakland newspapers. It was
obviously issued for the purpose of influencing the people of
Oakland to the advantage of your corporation client in the
contest which it is now waging against them, and the ques-
tions contained in the letter were manifestly there with a
view, and in the hope, of obtaining from me some statement
which might be distorted in furtherance of that end.
The first six of your series of seventeen questions are
directed to the titles upon which rest the properties which
the Bay Cities Water Company is now offering to sell the
City of Oakland. I will remark that those titles are perfect.
They are founded upon most familiar law, upon which we
have the written opinions of many leading lawyers of San Titles to Bay
Francisco. The officers of the City of Oakland have been citie properties
advised of the titles and the muniments upon which they P erfect -
rest. I would say further that before the city need obligate
itself to purchase the properties, the soundness of those titles
must appear to the satisfaction of the attorneys of the City
of Oakland. Further than this, our company remains obli-
gated, not only to insure the validity of those titles, but also
the quiet possession of the property itself; and to such end Oakland need
it stands ready to deposit whatever security may be required. not commit her-
The questions which you present, with their answers, self to purchase
are 'iS follows: until satisfied as
First When did the Bay Cities Water Company acquire * title -
the rights it claims to the lands it proposes to convey to the
City of Oakland?
ANSWER We own the lands absolutely in fee simple,
having acquired them by purchase at various intervals since
the incorporation of our company.
Second When did the Bay Cities Water Company acquire
the rights to the waters it proposes to convey to the City,
and how were those rights acquired?
ANSWER By the usual legal methods subsequent to
the incorporation of our company.
Ripar '*nt rfered Third At the time or times of such acquisition, or at
n .* any subsequent time, has it acquired, either by grant, con-
demnation, or in any way, the rights of riparian owners along
the streams below the sites of its proposed dams ?
ANSWER It has not; no such rights are necessary.
Riparian owners will not be interfered with.
Fourth What at present becomes of the storm waters
it proposes to impound?
ANSWER They run to waste, into the Bay of San Fran-
cisco. We have not attempted to trace them further.
Fifth Is it not true that these waters furnish the pres-
ent supply for the Niles Cone, so termed? And does the
Bay Cities Water Company claim rights superior to the rights
of those who now take water from the artesian belt surround-
ing the Niles Cone?
ANSWER The waters we take do not furnish the supply
Niles con wa f f tlie ^iles Cone.
tcr not interfered Sixth Has it obtained from all, or from any, of the
with. people using such storm waters in these artesian belts, the
right to impound the same?
ANSWER It has not and requires no such right.
Not necessar Seventh Must the wooden conduit it is proposed to use
that conduit cross * n transmitting the water from the reservoirs to the City of
Spring Valley Oakland necessarily cross the lands of the Spring Valley
lands. Water Company in its course from the contemplated reser-
voirs to the City of Oakland?
ANSWER It is not necessary that the conduit cross any
lands of the Spring Valley Water Company.
Conduit will not Eighth Is it or is it not the fact that the wooden conduit
pass through, un- ^ or a distance f several miles is to be laid at the bottom of a
der OP near Spring reservoir intended to be constructed and filled with water
Valley reservoir, by the Spring Valley Water Company?
ANSWER Such is not a fact. The pipe line will not at
any point be laid within the limits of any lands of the Spring
Valley Water Company possible of being used as a reservoir.
Ninth Has it acquired from that company the right
. to lay its wooden conduit aloner, over, upon, through or under
any of the lands of the Spring Valley Water Company?
ANSWER It has not.
Tenth If it is in contemplation to lay its wooden con-
duit for a distance of several miles at the bottom of a reser-
voir of the Spring Valley Water Company, how are repairs to
be made in event of a break in the woodSti conduit?
ANSWER We have no intention of laying any part
of the wooden conduit within the limits of any Spring Val-
ley reservoir.
Eleventh Can the Bay Cities Water Company, as a pri-
vate corporation, contemplating not the furnishing of water
to a municipality, but the sale of its plant to such a municipal- s " em ^"*' " e
ity, condemn the right of way across the lands of another )and8 not nec * s *
water company? 8ary .
ANSWER We do not contemplate any such condem-
nation proceedings. It is not necessary to cross lands of,
another water company.
Twelfth What evidence has the Bay Cities Water Com-
pany not in existence at the time Mr. Desmond Fitzgerald
condemned its scheme, to show that the quality of storm
waters is not bad, as alleged by him, and that such waters
only become potable by filtering or aerating?
ANSWER Desmond Fitzgerald made no such allega-
tions. He never suggested filtering and aeration for the Purit x of water
storm waters To the contrary he says: "It has always unc i uestloned -
been well established that in deep, well planned reservoirs,
comparatively free from organic matter, there is a decided
improvement in the quality of water, due to storage in an
open reservoir, the opposite being true of ground or filtered
water."
Mr. Fitzgerald made certain suggestions in respect of
the plans as then before him concerning the protection of
the waters from contamination. The recommendations
made by him have been included in the new plan which is
now before the people. These new plans have been passed
upon by the board of engineers recently appointed on behalf
of the city, who examined the physical features of the prop-
osition from the standpoint of these plans, and they stated
concerning the water as follows :
"This consideration (the geology) in connection with the
fact that the watershed is so sparsely populated, PLACES THE
WATER SUPPLY BEYOND CRITICISM \ and its crystal clearness
at the time of our visit bears practical evidence of its favor-
able surroundings."
Thirteenth Is it, or is it not, the fact that only four city's Engineers
days were occupied by the Board of Engineers recently ap- made more ex-
Sainted, upon the properties to be conveyed to the City of tended examina-
akland, in making actual examination of the physical feat- tion than did
ures of the properties and in going over the eighty or more Fitzgerald.
square miles of watershed claimed by the Bay Cities Water
Company ?
A W ER It is not a fact. The members of that Board
of ^- ee rs were three times as long in the field and many
days longer in summing up their notes than was Desmond
Fitzgerald.
City absolutely Fourteenth Do you think the City of Oakland amply
protected by bonds protected by a bond of $1,000,000 when it is proposed to pay
and securities of- O y Our Company $3,750,000 for a plant from which it may
fered by Bay Cit- never b e arj i e ^ o obtain water, unless each of the foregoing
ics Water Co. questions can be satisfactorily answered?
ANSWER The City of Oakland will be made perfectly
safe against any loss whatever through putting in this muni-
cipal water system. Whatever sum, or whatever bond, or
whatever form of security may be considered necessary to
that end will be provided. Let your qualms as a taxpayer
quiet on that score. You will not be mulcted because of
any failure on our part to deliver what we sell, and to
insure it to the city free and clear of any difficulties which
your client, or its associate in interest, the Spring Valley
Water Company, or any one else can make for it.
Proposition that Fifteenth Would you, as a man of wealth, invest your
bonds be based on means in bonds secured alone by property which a company
water plant alone proposes to convey while another water company is already
illegal and absurd, in the field?
ANSWER This question has nothing to do with the
Bay Cities proposition, but if I were to follow in the footsteps
of your client, Mr. Dingee, who did this very thing when he
entered the field with the Oakland Water Company in com-
petition with the old Contra Costa Company, I would prob-
ably invest my means in such bonds.
Sixteenth Did the Bay Cities Water Company receive
from the Spring Va.ley Water Company a letter, dated Sep-
tember 24, 1903, with reference to the rights of the latter
company to the waters claimed by your Company, and, if so,
what response has been made thereto?
ANSWER Yes; on that date Spring Valley Water Com-
pany sent us a communication informing us that it claimed
the right to certain waters which are a small p< rti< n of < ur
present contemplated supply to Oak and. No reply was
made to this communication, as none was required, or, so
far as we know, expected.
$28,000,000 saved Seventeenth If, as stated by your C< mpany in a recent
to Oakland by ac- communication to the Council, a profit of s< me $28,000.000
quisition of Bay is to result to the City fnm the aoquisiti- n by the City .f
Cities Water Co.'s your plant, notwithstanding the r< mpetiti'-n of the ('< nt-a
plnt. Costa Water Company, why is it that you and your asso-
ciates, all moneyed men, do not complete the project and
realize that vast sum for yourselves?
ANSWER The said sum of $28,000,000 is the amount
which the people of Oakland will save during the peri' d of
forty years through owning a municipal plant, figured upon
the basis of the rates which your client is now charging, and
upon a normal increase of population of the City during that
period. In other words, it your client succeeds in defeating
this movement of the people to rid themselves of its domina-
tion, and can hold the people in its power during the ensuing
forty years, it will have collected at the end of that time from
them "$22, ooo, ooo more than they would have been obliged
to pay for water if the forthcoming bond election had been
carried. At the end of those forty years, also, they will still
be paying your client the same rates as now, instead of only
twenty per cent of those rates; whereas, if the bond election
be carried and our works installed the municipal plant would
at the end of the forty-year period be fully paid for and the
rates of water would then be reduced 80% below the present
rates. Moreover, the people of Oakland would then have a
property belonging to the city worth vastly more than the
$6,000,000 originally paid for it, instead of having built up
for your client a property which it would probably regard
as worth upwards of $30,000,000, and into which it would
not meanwhile have put a dollar of outside money. It seems
to me, in view of these facts, that any taxpayer who, with a
clear understanding of the conditions, would go before his
neighbors and fellow-citizens, and advise them to defeat our
proposition, cannot justly complain if his zeal be attributed
to partisan advocacy rather than to public spirit.
Having thus, with such thoroughness as I can command Bay Cities did
answered each of the seventeen interrogatories which you "t seek to sell to
were pleased to propound, I now, in like quest of informa- Oakland; Oakland
tion, and in order that the public may be apprised of the true Sou 9 ht Ba / Cities,
facts of this controversy, beg to address to you certain ques-
tions, and urge response thereto.
These questions, by. singular coincidence, are seventeen
in number. I may preface them by saying that cur attitude
at the beginning of this contest was that of a seller of a water
plant to the City of Oakland. Two years had been spent
by us in negotiating with the officials of that city over the
sale of this plant, while they on their side had been acting
in response to the specific demands of the practically unan-
imous public sentiment which had elected them to office.
We were content to offer our plant upon its merits and with-
hold ourselves wholly from otherwise influencing the minds
of the people towards its acceptance. It was no purpose of
ours to enter for a moment the arena of controversy and by
any means or through any process seek to further the pur-
chasing of our property. At the beginning of this matter
it was the people who asked for our proposals; it was not we
who had sought them. Having made our proposition, we
were content to leave the result with them.
While the minds of the people were yet unclouded by
the organized endeavor which your client has since made to
influence them to its end, there was submitted to their con-
sideration as a referendum, the proposition which our com-
pany had made, along with another. The result of that
canvass showed a poll of 5,065 votes out of a total of 7,135,
or more than the necessary two-thirds required by law to
accept our proposition, had such been a legal vote. Indeed,
as an evidence of how slightly the plant of your client is fav-
ored or desired by the people of Oakland, there were out of
the total but 57 persons who expressed themselves definitely
in favor of acquiring it, and but 367 who were opposed to
either of the plans submitted. The total of the two last may,
I believe, be taken to represent the aggregate of your Oak-
land stockholders, bondholders, employes, and those who
are dependent upon your establishment for favors.
Convinced, therefore, that the people of Oakland desired
our plant, we were still completely content to withhold our-
selves from any part in the question of the final vote upon
the issuance of the bonds for its purchase. But your client
has created a conflict, and through its attorney, yourself, I
am specifically, and by name, and in the most direct, com-
prehensive and public way, drawn into the fight. I am
reluctant to engage in a contest, but, being challenged, under
conditions which demand a defense, I do not shun the battle.
I shall not stand idly by and see our titles slandered,
the purity of our water denied, the engineering features of our
proposed construction denounced, the people falsely told
that the installation of our plant will increase their municipal
taxation, or with equal falsity advised that the trumped-up
litigation threatened by your client and its associate in this
matter, the Spring Valley Water Company, will prevent us
from constructing the plant if the bonds are voted, or will
interfere with delivery of water to Oakland at the completion
thereof and our entire project stigmatized as "costly,"
"chimerical" and "rotten." I shall not sit idly by, I say,
and witness the perpetration by your client of these assaults
upon our company and the people of Oakland. But I shall
do what I consider the conditions require to counteract the
wrong impression which your client is now industriously
seeking to produce upon the public mind of Oakland.
Let me then commence by asking you the following
question :
Taxation not in- First Why does your client tell the people that the
creased. putting in of the Bay Cities plant would increase city tax-
ation? Do you and your client seriously mean to contend
that putting in the Bay Cities plant would increase taxation?
The putting in of the Bay Cities plant will reduce taxa-
tion, not increase it. By putting in the Bay Cities plant, the
city would save at once over $71,300.00 in municipal charges
which it now pays your client for city supply. This sum is
annually increasing with the growth of the city and the en-
largement of its needs for water. Within ten years it will
have increased to $100,000.00 per annum; a sum equal to the
total operating expenses of the plant. Nor does the city now
get anything like the quantity of water necessary to sprinkle
its streets, or even keep its macadamized streets in repair,
which expensive pavements it is notorious are deteriorating
for lack of sufficient water in season to maintain them in
condition. As for parks, they are poorly watered, and one
or more of them, because of the cost of water, are not irrigated
at all.
With the municipal plant, the city would have all the
water it needs for parks, streets, schools, fire hydrants and
whatever else, which it is safe to say would be over twice the
amount it now consumes, and it would save the $71,300.00
which it now pays to your client.
Further than this: The city has, during the last four Litigation with
years and a half, from and including the year ending June Contra Costa in-
30, 1901, spent $50,227.85 in litigating with your client over creases taxation.
the subject of water rates. This litigation is perennial, and
will go on as long as your corporation remains in the field as
a vendor of water for domestic consumption. It is an inci-
dent of operation of the water system by your particular
private enterprise. If the people would cease from troubling
over water rates while your client is their sole source of ser-
vice, they must pay for that peace and they must pay a price
corel ative in magnitude to that which, in consideration of
peace, a conqueror demands of the population of a subjugated
territory : they must pay whatever rates your client may feel
it to its interests to impose. The people will not submit to
this, even if your client remains in the field, so the cost of
litigation against your company should properly be considered
a continuous annual source of outlay, and so figured in the
estimates.
The painful part about this feature oj litigation is that the Cit y P'^* Con '
people pay all costs and attorney's fees of both your side and tra Cost ' s !'
their own. Your client's cost of litigation and lawyers in its ex P nse8 w "
tuits against the city during the like period of four and one- as ' s own *
half years has been the enormous figure of $158, 468. 99; over
three times tl-'e cost of the same litigation and attorney's fees on
part of the city. This large sum you have charged up in your
bill of expenses and it has been figured in the basis of rates
which your client has been enabled to declare against the
water consumers of the city. It is unnecessary to say that
under municipal ownership this sort of thing will cease.
If the municipal plant started in with all the people tak-
ing water from it, the water rates could be at once reduced
24 1-3 per cent, and the existing tax rates would in no manner
be affected.
In this connection I should remark that the people of
Oakland have not started into this matter of providing them-
selves with a municipal water plant through any kindly feel-
8
futile e
bu ' ^
tra Costa p^ant.
ings towards your client, or through any disposition to tem-
porize with it, or to share with it the business of furnishing
water to themselves. The specific purpose which they had
in view in arranging to put in a plant of their own, is to
get rid of your corporation and its plant. They wish to get
rid of it for many reasons : the rates are intolerably high, and
centra Costa a it has so adjusted its affairs that they cannot be lowered; it
menace t o effi- is in constant war with the people in the Courts over
iency of city rates, causing large sums of expense, both to themselves and
government. your corporation, both of which costs the people must pay
and it is a constant menace to the efficiency of the legislative
and administrative arms of the city government. Influences
of this sort tend to lower the standard of moral character
pervading the municipal government, to degrade politics,
and ofttimes unjustly to subject those elected to office to the
odium of popular suspicion. For these and other reasons
they have decided that the only relief possible is to get rid
of your client entirely.
^ or a ^ on ? time they had hoped to purchase its plant,
an( ^ ky acquiring its property eliminate it from the field.
They worked assiduously with your client's management
for months and months, reaching into years, in the hope
that it would be induced to sell, and that some reasonable
valuation of the property could be agreed upon. In the per-
son of Desmond Fitzgerald they procured an engineer of
repute to appraise the value of those properties, who found
them to be worth $2,689,185.00. The people, through their
Mayor, were willing to allow you a profit of nearly a million
dollars and would have purchased your plant at $3,500,000.00;
but you chose to consider this figure preposterous and refused
to treat further upon the subject.
There is no escape for the people through dealing with
you; there is but one resource left, that is for them to put in
a plant of their own. When they concluded to do this they
did not expect their proceedings to that end to move on with-
out such opposition as your client and its coterie of interests
might be able to make. It was to be expected that 57
people, who, by their vote at the referendum, had shown
themselves interested in your properties and some of the 367
who had shown their indifference would write letters to news-
papers, issue circulars and have them distributed, and by
whatever means possible try to generate an apparent popular
sentiment against the purchase of the plant which the people
had selected. They well recognize also that your client would
create a literary bureau, and that through such instrument
it would disseminate sophistical arguments against the advan-
tage to the people of the proposed municipal plant, and against
the advisability of its installation.
Taxes decreased One of these sophistries is that the tax rate would be
by a municipal enormously raised through your client's competition with
plant. the municipal plant. I shall show that it would not. Let the
water be furnished the people entirely free, and the tax rate
would be but $2.00, or 74 cents above the rate now paid, which
present rate is $1.26 on the $100 of valuation.
With all the people taking water from the city plant
and the tax rate remaining as it now is, undisturbed, there
would at once be a reduction in water rates of 24 1-3 per cent.
This fact becomes apparent upon reference to the following
statement :
Collections of Contra Costa Water
Co. from private consumers in
Oakland, and from City of Oak-
land for 1904 $576,626 37
Sum paid to C. C. W. Co. by City for
public supply $ 71,300 oo 71,300 oo
Amount collected from private con-
sumers in Oakland by C. C.W. Co.
in 1904 $505,326 37
First year's costs on Municipal Plant
Interest on $5,557,500,00 Bonds at
4% $222,300 oo
(When the plant starts into opera-
tion there will have been redeemed
$142,500 oo of the bonds )
Sinking Fund for Bond Redemp-
tion 142,500 oo
Operation of Plant *i 00,000 oo
TOTAL $464,800 oo
Sum paid to C. C. W. Co. by City of
Oakland for public supply, which
amount may be transferred from
Tax Fund to Water Fund without
changing present tax rate $ 71,300 oo
Average sum annually paid by the
City during the last 4 K years as
expenses of water rate litigation
with C. C.W. Co., and which sum
may be transferred from Tax
Fund to Water Fund without
changing present tax rate 11,16111
$ 82,461 ii
The difference representing the sum
which must be raised from water
rates to private consumers $382,33889
Amount collected from private con-
sumers in Oakland by C. C. W.
Co., in 1904 (See above) 505,326 37
Reduction of amount to be paid by
private consumers $122,987 48
This reduction of $122,987.48 is equivalent to 24 1-3 per
cent of $505,326 37, or the rate to private consumers during
ike first year's operation of the municipal plant would be 24 1-3
PER CENT less than that collected by the Contra Costa Water
Company during the year 1904, WITHOUT INTERFERING WITH
EXISTING TAX RATES IN ANY MANNER WHATEVER.
In addition the city will have acquired a tangible clear
asset amounting to $142,500.00, which is the annual instal-
ment of the sinking fund for bond redemption. Taking
this into consideration THE REAL NET GAIN TO THE PEOPLE
OF OAKLAND is $122,987.48, plus $142,500.00, or $265,487.48,
which is 46% of the amount collected by the Contra Costa Water
Company from private consumers and the City of Oakland in
1904.
*This figure represents the actual cost of operations
(allowing the liberal sum of $25,000 for administrative ex-
penses) which the plant would incur, with no allowance made
for repairs or extensions. As the plant would be new, there
would be no repairs or extensions to speak of, during the
first three years after operations began. Following this
there would be some expense through both causes. This,
however, would not increase the water rates, nor prevent
them from continuing to fall, as there would be a saving each
year in interest paid upon the successive redemptions of the
bonded indebtedness, which would much more than offset
the cost of extensions and repairs to the system.
Municipal plant ' But your client declares that it will be a competitor in
will drive Contra the field against the municipal plant and that such plant
Costa from the shall not get all the water consumers. On the contrary it is
fi'd. demonstrable that not one taxpayer will take water from your
plant, unless such taxpayer be some person who has some
special interest in the company, is willing to donate a large
part of his money to it, and whose interests are not in common
with his fellow water consumers; even this person would not
patronize it long, for your client's Oakland plant must very
shortly thereafter go out of existence.
And the reason is very simple: The city plant will start
in furnishing water at cost. That cost will be 24>i%
below the water rates of 1904. Your client will never offer
water to the people at a less rate than the people will offer
it to themselves through their city plant. Whatever fall you
make in rates, the rates of the city plant will fall to meet it.
If you force the people to furnish water to themselves at less
than cost they will do so, making up the difference out of
general taxation.
Taxes reduced. The appended tables, based upon water being furnished
by the city plant at present rates, brings out the fact here-
tofore stated, that as soon as a deficit in the municipal water
plant fund shall appear, and said plant begin to pinch upon
taxation, the taxpaying water consumers, who may be taking
from your plant would, in defense of their own pockets, leave
you at once and rush to the municipal plant. The truth is
that they will not wait for that point to be reached. They
will leave your plant at present rates and go to the municipal
plant, in order to get a reduction of taxation. This reduction
also appears by the table as follows :
Table I. ON BASIS OF CONTRA COSTA WATER RATES FOR 1904
al
p
IP
)f water consu
by Municipal P
isumers.
o 8
I-B^
< ^
w Pk f6
11 j
.a M
|||
i^ '~
* K
RATES
s *t
ill
a o g
fp
centage <
'urnished
ivate Cot
c
a
g 5-B
S S g
3^
Q S 2
R JB
S
fi
III*
|sll
S =
PRIVATE + CITY = TOTAL
3 o
P4
IOO
^505,326. 37
$122,9^7.47
None
017
243 reduction
-|- 71,300 oo
$576,626.37
90
454,793-73
72,454.83
None
259
142 reduction
| 71,300 oo
$526,093.73
80
404,261.09
21,922.19
None
.218
042 reduction
-J- 71,300.00
$475,561.09
75^3
382.338.90 .
None
None
.26
None
H 7 I '3o-o
Rate)
$453,638-9
70
353,728.46
None
$28,610.44
315
055 increase
-j- 71,300.00
$425,028.46
60
303,195.82
None
79,143.08
413
153 increase
-|- 71,300.00
$374,495-82
5
252,663.19
None
129,675.71
I.4II
251 increase
-|-7i,3oo.oo
$323,963-19
40
202,130.55
None
180,208.35
I.S08
.348 increase
-J- 71,300.00
$273,430-55
3
i5 I ,597-9 I
None
230,740.99
I. 606
.446 increase
-|-7i,3oo.oo
$222,897.91
20
101,065.28
None
281,273.62
1.704
.544 increase
-|- 71,300.00
$172,365.28
IO
50,532.64
None
331,806.2
I. 80
.642 increase
-i- 71,300.00
I
$121,832.64
None
382,338-9
2.00
. 74 increase
Free
Wat
t -1-71,300.00
ate Coo
umers
$7i,30o.oc
>
IS
Should the proportion of city plant customers fall below
f the total number of water consumers, then a defi-
cit would begin to appear in the water fund which would have
to be met through the tax rates. This deficit would bear
equally upon the consumers of both plants, and would mark
the point where the patron of the Contra Costa plant would
have to pay not only as much money for his water as would
be paid by the patrons of the city plant, but added to this a
penalty collected through his tax rates because of his refusal
to take water from the city plant.
In other words, when the city plant is in, there will be a
given quantity of water for each and every consumer in the
city, for which given quantity he must pay, either through
paying water rates, or tax rates. If he allows his share of
the water to run into the sea and chooses to take that of the
Contra Costa Company and pay for it, he must also pay for
his share of the water which he has thus permitted to run
to waste. Under such conditions he wastes in two directions :
he lets his municipal water go to waste, and he wastes his
money by paying it to the Contra Costa for water while his
own water is going to waste.
The question is: Will any one do this? My answer is
that not one water consumer in Oakland will do it. To the
contrary, he will take water from the city plant not only to
keep from increasing his taxation, but he will do so to get
the benefit of a reduction in taxation, if the existing Contra
Costa rates be those upon which the city plant begins to
furnish water.
But I have said that my opinion is that in practice, when
the Council determines upon the rates the city will charge
for water, it will let the tax rates remain as they are, making
no reduction in them, but begin to furnish water at a 24^
per cent reduction from the present rates, which rates so
reached, would, with all the consumers supplied from the
city plant, yield exactly the cost of the water. The table
based upon rates yielding the actual cost of the municipal
water to all the people is as follows:
Table II. ON BASIS OF 24^% CUT IN PRESENT
WATER RATES TO PRIVATE CONSUMERS
STARTING WITH PRESENT TAX RATES.
I!
o 8
: of water consu
by municipal ]
isumers.
P
s t
felg
ill
111
w
rt
NCREASE
present tax ]
cover deficit
fl!
*
H
" S $
Q
S
PRIVATE + CITY = TOTAL
'
TOO
$382,338 90
None
1.26
None
-|- 71,300.00
i Pres.
Kate)
$453,638 9
90
344,105 01
$38,23389
1-334
.074
-|- 71,300.00
.$415,405 01
80
305,871 12
76.467 78
1 .408
.148
| 71,300.00
$377,171 I 2
70
267,637 2 3
114,701 67
1.482
. 222
1 -1-71,300.00
$338,937 2 3
60
229,403 34
152,935 56 1.556
.2 9 6
-|- 71,300.00
$300,703 34
5
191,169 45
191,169.45
1.63
37
-[-71,300 oo
$262,469 45
40
I 5 2 ,935 56
229,403 34
1.704
444
-|-7i,30o.oo
$224,235.56
3
114,701 67
267,637 23
1.778
S 1 ^
-!- 71,300.00
$186,001 67
20
76.467.78
305,871 12
1.852
592
| 71,300.00
$147,767.78
10
38,233 89
344,105 oi
1 .926
.666
-!- 71,300.00
$109,533 89
382,33889
2 .00
74
-]- 71,300.00
$71,300.00)
14
The percentages in this column from 100% down are
purely theoretical, and could never occur in practice; for the
reason that, as stated above, immediately a deficit began to
appear in the water fund, the taxpayers, through whom all
water is consumed, would, in order to hold down taxation,
immediately leave the Contra Costa and go over to the city
plant. The percentages, however, with the calculations
based upon them, are appended as a matter of theory and
curiosity.
Contra Costa It is useless to further pursue the inquiry through such
could not exist in tables as above to ascertain what might be the condition
competition with w ith your client cutting 40% and getting this or that per-
municipal plant, centageof the consumers, or its cutting 50% or 60%, or what-
ever other per cent, and getting one or another percentage
of the consumers; suffice it to say, that your company could
not make them and exist. A condition even of free water
would not be without precedent in California. The City of
Monrovia in Southern California had it for years and found
it of immense advantage. The water rate payers are all tax
payers. This statement holds good even in the case of tenants
who, in fact, pay water rent for their landlords. They would
Tenant benefit- not patronize your client, for the money they thus paid would
ed by municipal have to be paid over again by their landlords to the city
plant- in taxation, and would, of course, be charged back again to
the tenants, in increased rent. The tenant is interested in
reducing his rent, through lessening taxation, rather than
raising his rent through increasing taxation.
From this explanation it must be clear to you, and if not
to you, it will be clear to the people of Oakland, that with
the city plant in existence you would be absolutely powerless
as a competitor against the city plant. Your functions as
a water carrier for Oakland would thereupon cease you must
then forthwith close your doors to business in Oakland.
We have thus shown that the municipal plant in opera-
tion would not raise tax rates one dollar unless it reduced
water rates one dollar, and this reduction being below the
standard of 24 1-3 less than your present rates. That stand-
ard of reduction below your present rates would be increased
every year. As each installment of the bonded debt is paid
off, amounting to $142,500 per year, there is thus much less
interest-bearing debt outstanding. Four per cent on $142,-
500 is $5,700 oo ; so the year following the putting in of the
city plant we would pay $5,700.00 less interest on the bonds,
which credit would redound to the benefit of the consumers
by allowing them a further reduction of about i % from your
existing water rates. The second year, therefore, the 24 1-3 %
reduction would be increased to 25 1-3%; the third year it
would be 26 1-3%; the fourth year it would be 27 1-3%;
the fifth year it would be 28 1-3%; the tenth year it would
be 33 1-3%. And so on it would go, the water rates getting
less and less each year, until the plant was entirely paid for,
when a large additional reduction would occur through not
having further to provide the bond installment. This would
leave the expenses of the municipal plant the cost of oper-
ating it solely, which would be about 80% less than your
present water rates.
The above percentages are based on the present popula-
tion of Oakland and if allowance is made for the prospective
increase the showing will be very much more favorable to
the City of Oakland.
TWJ Why do your client's writers persistently state Not true that
to the public that the people of Oakland shall have'paidin people must pay
"taxes for bond interest alone $690,000" and "also $420,656 |111<W8fl before
sinking fund, or a total of $1,110,650 before they get any the y 9 et water -
water?" Do not you, your client and its writers know that
such statements are incorrect?
To prove their error let us take a hypothetical case. In
this connection I may say that all of our computations with
regard to this matter must necessarily be based upon hypoth-
eses, and the case which I select is chosen arbitrarily for the
purpose of illustrating merely the proper method of computa-
tion. Let us then assume that it takes three years to con-
struct the municipal plant and that construction begins on
June i , 1905, let us further assume that the cost of construction
will be paid for as the work progresses, and that instead of
many payments being made at intervals throughout the
period of construction, there will be three issuances of in-
stallments of the bonds, each issuance at the end of a year
and each one-third of the total bond issue: Each payment
would, therefore, be through the issuance of $1,900,000 of
bonds. Of the bonds issued June i, 1906, there would on
June i, 1907, fall due $76,000 interest and $47,500 would
have to be provided for redemption of one-fortieth of the quan-
tity of bonds outstanding, making a total sum to be provided
for from taxation of $123,500. At the same time there is
issued another $1,900,000 of the bonds. On June first of
the next year 1908 there would be payable interest on
$1,852,500, plus $1,900,000 "= $3,752,500, or $150,100;
also one-fortieth of the sum of the bonds issued, or $95,000,
making a total for that year to be raised from taxation of
$245,100. At the same time there would be issued the re-
maining $1,900,000 of bonds, and the plant be completed
and the water turned in.
To recapitulate the above we have:
June i , 1905 Work started
June i, 1906, Bonds issued for $1,900,000
June i, 1907, Bonds issued for 1,900,000
i6
And payments as follows :
Interest on $1,900 ,000 at 4% $ 76,000
1-40 for Redemption Fund 47,500
Total $ 123,500
June i, 1908, Bonds issued for $1,900,000
Interest on 3,752,500 150,100
1-40 Redemption Fund 95,000
Total $ 245.100
Grand Total $ 368,600
$123,500 would raise the tax rate for the year .239.
$245,100 would raise the tax rate .475.
So that instead of there being $1,110,650 to be paid out
of taxation on account of the water plant during the three
years before water becomes distributable, as your client
through its writers erroneously states, there would be but
$368,600, an amount which, being apportioned between the
two years, would occasion but a comparatively small raise
in taxation. The year following, the water plant being in
operation, the plant would take care of its own expenses,
would not have to call upon the tax lists any further, and
the people would start off with water at 24^5% reduction,
which would, in three years following, more than return
them in saving upon their water bills the moneys which they
had advanced through their taxes to bring the municipal
plant into existence.
Three Why does your client, through its writers, and
others, assert that such litigation as your corporation and
its associate the Spring Valley Water Company, might bring
against the Bay Cities Water Company, would tie up the
building of the plant and prevent the delivery of our waters
to Oakland until the conclusion of the litigation which,
they say, would drag along for years when both you, your
client, its writers and the Spring Valley Water Company
must know that such statements are absurd?
Litigation will Neither your corporation, the Spring Valley, nor any
not prevent o r de- one e ] se cou \ft & o any suc h thing. If suits were brought
lay delivery of a g a j nst US) as j s threatened, and we are at a loss to know or
wa er< imagine upon what tenable ground either or any of you
hope to get into court if any such litigation occurs, it would
not stop construction an hour, nor hold back water a day,
and we have not the slightest fear of the outcome. For
ourselves, however, we do not believe that such suits will
be brought, at least, with any idea of ultimate success on
your part.
Fourth Do you or your client really believe that the
people of Oakland do not see through your client's scheme
which its writers constantly propose of making the munici-
pal bonds rest upon the water plant alone?
17
Do you not know that the people realize that such is
merely a ruse on your part to deteat the bond issue? That
there is no law making such a thing possible why do your
writers ask the question?
Fifth Your client's writers are constantly making the
people who sign their "interviews" say that our proposition
is "too vague:" What dees your client mean by that? or
is the phrase itself intended to be "vague" and convey no
meaning, but merely an expression derogatory to our project?
For our part we think our project is exceedingly defined Bay Cities prop-
and direct. We own the land, we own the waters. We know osition a direct
what we own and what can be done with it. The first half one -
of this statement comprehends results of a mass of work of
many lawyers; the latter half the charts and figures of many
engineers. As a result of the work and opinion of these
engineers and lawyers the Bay Cities Water Company has
invested many hundreds of thousands of dollars in the prop-
erties which it has offered to sell the City of Oakland. To
our minds language does not admit of more direct, explicit
and comprehensive statements than we have made, or that
is embodied in our proposition, and if you can really find
anything vague in what we offer, we should be glad to clear
your mind upon it.
Sixth Why does your client, through its writers, state Bay Cities Wa-
that the cost of the Bay Cities plant will be largely in terCompany guar-
excess of the amount covered by the proposed bond issue? antee complete
If you mean that the expense of constructing the plant P |arvt f r proposed
will be largely in excess of the amount of the bonds, we say amount -
that we will construct the plant for that amount, and give
bonds in satisfactory amount to substantiate our undertaking.
Seventh Why does your client have its writers prepare,
and cause to be printed in the San Francisco and Oakland
newspapers, such misleading articles as have recently appeared
attacking the Bay Cities proposition? Let me cite a few of
the misstatements with which they abound:
It is stated that "The Oakland Council, by asking the ....
1 . 11/-A misstatements of
people to vote upon themselves a debt of $5,700,000 to buy contra Costa's
a water plant (Bay Cities) is asking them to pay a tax during a d voca t es .
the period of construction, without any return at all, of
$1,110,650." This statement is false, utterly and absolutely,
as shown above.
It is stated that "The law requires the bonds to be sold
in a lump:" This statement is false ; they could not beso sold
under the law.
It is stated that "Trying to get a municipal plant while
leaving a competitor in the field everywhere results in loss
and waste." This statement is false in toto. It nowhere
results or ever has resulted in loss and waste, excepting to
the private plant. Vallejo and Santa Rosa are instances in
point in this state.
i8
It is stated that "in Europe the law requires that all
private plants shall be bought before entering upon municipal
ownerships." There is no such law anywhere in Europe, so
far as I know, and I challenge your writer to produce such
law. It is true, however, that no European government
would bother with putting in a municipal plant, while a pri-
vate plant existed in the field. If your plant were in a Euro-
pean community, the method of the government in dealing
with you would be very different from what it is in Oakland.
Having concluded to put in its own waterworks, the govern-
ment would send its Desmond Fitzgerald to appraise the
value of your plant. Finding it to be worth $2,689,185,
that sum would be deposited, payable to you on demand by
the Royal or Imperial Treasurer. The government would
then proceed to take over your plant. Let your client, if it
dare, acquire a literary bureau, paid interviewers, political
corps, subsidized newspapers and all the rest of its equipment
and paraphernalia for affecting public opinion to its ends and
try such a thing on a European community. Why, no sooner
would its first publication go forth, redundant with its fabri-
cations and false colorings, than your establishment would
be surrounded by a detachment of "gens d'armes" and the
whole outfit of you, president, lawyers, writers, publishers
and politicians would be lined up and marched off to the
calaboose. You had better instruct your writers to "let up"
on their European comparisons in their future articles.
Eight As a taxpayer, distressed through the fear of
having to pay a few farthings of increased taxation for the
two years while the city plant is being built, then get it all
back through reduced water rates during the succeeding
two years, with further reduction in rates from that on as
such a taxpayer, what do you think of the proposition of
paying your client its price of $8,000,000 for its 10,000,000
gallon plant, then immediately thereafter forced to buy addi-
tional water from elsewhere (for the Contra Costa is now
furnishing its full limit of supply) and to pay therefor the
price which the Bay Cities asks, $3,750,000 (for it could not
be had for less) ; making in all a total cost of at least $i 1,750,-
ooo. Let me ask you what do you think of that for a bond
issue, and how does that strike you as a taxpayer, and as
such how would it affect your tax schedule?
City cannot Ninth Your client through its writers is repeatedly
make contract telling the people that they do not know what they are going
until people vote to vote bonds upon, because they are not permitted to see
bonds, the contract which it is proposed sha 1 ! be entered into be-
tween the city and the Bay Cities Water Company. Why
does your client do that, when it knows it is not possible to
enter into any contract until the people have, by their votes,
authorized the Mayor and City Council to make one?
Your client is seeking to confuse the public mind by
substituting contract for proposition. The people are in-
formed upon what they are voting by reference to our prop-
osition to them, now on file with the City Council. That
proposition is elaborately presented, being recited with great
explicitness, the entire aggregate of the properties to be sold
fully shown, many of the features being illustrated with
charts and tables. It has all been printed in the public
press of Oakland, and to present it herewith would require Ba x Cities prop-
extended space. Briefly, however, it is to sell to the city in osition perfectly
fee simple about 8,000 acres of land, together with water c|ear -
rights to a minimum of 20,000,000 gallons of water per day
in the driest year. In ordinary years there would be up-
wards of 25,000,000 gallons per day yielded by the properties.
To erect dams and create reservoirs for impounding this city to own
water, all of which shall belong to the city, to build 51 miles p | ant a nd water
of wood stave pipe line and bring that water to the charter supply,
line of Oakland, where it may be distributed to the people
through the new distributing service which the city will build,
unless, as is suggested by Mr. Mott, the distributing system
of your client can be bought at a reasonable figure, which
would make the spending of the entire amount needful to
build a new distributing system unnecessary.
In respect to the matter of the contract, let me here state
that the Bay Cities Company is ready at any and all times
within the period fixed by our communication to the Council
to enter into a contract satisfactory to the city, whenever
the city on its part is ready to contract with us. The getting
up of the contract is a matter of work for engineers and law- .
yers, and the people's representatives, the Mayor, City Coun-
cil, City Attorney and City Engineer, can be trusted to take
care of the city's interest in that behalf.
Tenth Why does your client through its writers re-
peatedly complain about the wood stave pipe line in which it is
proposed to bring the waters of the municipal plant to Oak-
land, when your client knows, and its writers should know,
that engineers agree, and engineering works recognize, that
for carrying water under pressure an iron hooped wood stave
pipe is the best pipe for the purpose that exists?
I will mention the following as specimens of the mis-
statements which your client is using to prejudice the public
-mind upon this feature of the proposed construction. I
will cite only two, though I could enumerate many more.
First that "Desmond Fitzgerald's report condemns
the conveyance of water through a wood pipe as insufferable."
The statement is false. Desmond Fitzgerald did not con-
demn conveying the water through the wood pipe at all. He
objected to the use of wood stave construction in the force
main leading from the pumps. Such force main is not now
included in the plans before the Council. The only objector
to the wood pipe is a certain one of your writers, whose
name I sha 1 ! not mention in these pages.
Second "The friction of water rushing through a wooden
pipe under such a pressure as it will bear wears away the
wood. The wood fibre planed off by the friction will reach
us in our drinking water, and while we are drinking up the
wood of which the pipe is made, it will get thinner and begin
to break."
The statement is false and absurd. It is a peculiaritv
of wood pipes carrying water under pressure, that their inside
remains smooth, and does not form tubercles, as do iron or
steel pipes. After the water is turned in the pipe goes through
a sort of sweating or saturating process, and thereupon imme-
Woo stave pipe ^iately begins to form a skin coating upon its inside. The
e very b s con- j^^^g wa t er moves upon this skin, and does not touch the
wood at all. The skin becomes slightly thicker and tougher
as years go by, but the wood within does not change. How
long a wood pipe will last is not known, but London had 400
miles of it in use for 218 years, and during recent reconstruc-
tion it was found to be quite sound. Although the wood
practically does not deteriorate, the bands do, and after the
laose of many years must be replaced.
Eleventh Your client is supplying the cities of Berkeley
and Alameda from the same sources from which it now takes
water for Oakland. Two fires of recent occurrence in Ber-
Contra Costa fceiey^ O ne the Town Hall, the other a large furniture fac-
supply insufficient torV) s h ow ed a failure of water in your client's supply pipes,
o guarantee fire &Q - th t th prO perties were destroyed. The factory is now
protection. . i- fr j t i * *.i __!*_
suing your client for damages for loss of the property because
of its failure to furnish water to extinguish the fire. This
shows your water resources are exhausted. With all the
purchasable water lands about the bay corraled by your con-
frere, the Spring Valley Water Company, to keep out com-
petition from its business of supplying San Francisco, where
would you find additional water lands? And if found, how
much would you increase the cost of water to the people of
Oakland by reason of your expense incurred in acquiring
such new sources, and extracting water therefrom?
Twelfth As a citizen and taxpayer having investigated
the question of water supply for municipalities, we assume,
in your unbiased and unprejudiced research, that you know
how many cities in the United States having the same popu-
lation of Oakland, or larger, own their own water works, and,
if so, will you kindly give this information to the people of
Oakland? Also state what cities the size of Oakland, or
larger, in the United States, do not own their own water
works.
Thirteenth Is it not a fact that the Contra Costa Water
Company furnishes water to Berkeley and Alameda at a much
less rate than they charge the citizens of Oakland; and is it
not a fact that they charge the municipality of Berkeley and
Alameda for the water used by the municipalities a much less
ai
rate than they charge the City of Oakland for water for the
same purposes? If your answer is in the affirmative, will
you kindly explain to the people of Oakland why this should
be?
Fourteenth If your client^defeats the bond proposition
now pending, and is thereafter called upon by the city to
state a price at which it would sell its plant, would it not
name a much more prohibitive figure than even its present
price? And if condemnation proceedings were taken by the
city against that plant, you having your $7,000.000 valuation
as res adjudicate, would you not expect to be as successful
in getting your demands as you have heretofore been?
Fifteenth Is it not a fact that the expenditures in Oak- Mechanic, La-
land of some millions of the $5,700,000 raised from sale of borer Merchant
bonds would GREATLY BENEFIT LOCAL LABOR CONDITIONS, * nd Banke ^ bene-
GIVING EMPLOYMENT TO POSSIBLY A THOUSAND RESIDENTS Rt * d financial| y b X
OF OAKLAND, AFFORDING A MARKET FOR MUCH OAKLAND *., JUJ[ t B * y Clt "
MATERIAL, and the money finally finding its way into the '** p * n '
mercantile community, produce activities all along the line?
And this money being new funds coming into the city from
outside, would that not be better for the people of the city
than the presence of your company, which takes large sums
of money from them monthly and sends it away ?
Sixteenth Do you not appreciate the fact that the in-
stallation by the city of a new modern plant, with an ample
supply of pure water for fifty years abundance of water
for a.l purposes, streets, parks, fires and e.se, delivering
water at one-quarter the rates now paid, with the rates yearly
decreasing, with the consciousness of your plant being out
of the fie.d, and out of politics, that this would have a decid-
edly elevating effect upon the values of property in Oakland,
that the career of the city as a factor}.' center wou,d go rapidly
on, with the number of such establishments quickly increas-
ing, and that a.l activities would bejmmense'y stimulated?
Seventeenth On my desk beside me lies a printed cir- Mr. Chickering'*
cular written by you, entitled "BAY CITIES SCHEME real position on
COSTLY AND CHIMERICAL," a copy of which circu ar the water q u -
was mai'ed to each of the voters of Oakland. In this circu ar tlon<
ym pretend' to address the people of Oak- and as a citizen
and a taxpayer, revea ing therein no relation to the Company,
which is iv .w admittedly your client, and you assert that you
had not established this re.ation of attorney and client at
the time you started in to write the circular. You are un-
doubtedly sincere in making this statement, but a.l your
friends be ieve that you became sadiy mixed as to dates,
and have entirely forgotten the date of your employment.
Won't you please ask some of your friends about it and tell
the people of Oakland the result of your inquiries?
In that circular you find extensive faults with the Bay
Cities project. You roundly denounce it as an absurd prop-
osition, without foundation, impracticable, and much else,
and, as a taxpayer, a water consumer, a resident of Oakland
and a citizen "moved by civic pride," protest against such
a scheme being "saddled on to the municipality of Oakland."
, -i Further over on my desk lies a mass of documents, many
of them written by yourself, showing that in the year 1897
you were associated with E. G. Wheeler, at present largely
interested in and Secretary of the Bay Cities Water Com-
pany, and that you were aware at that time that Mr. Wheeler
was moving in the enterprises, and acquiring the properties
out of which the Bay Cities Water Company grew. That
you operated with him in the capacity of confidential agent,
FRIEND and attorney. That when it came to organizing the
Bay Cities Water Company in 1902, which was instituted
for the purpose, among others, of furnishing Oakland with
water, you advised E. G. Wheeler with regard to various
matters connected therewith, and among other functions
you performed was that of becoming trustee for a number of
the stockholders of the Bay Cities Water Company, which
trusteeship you continue ^to hold. That in the fall of 1903
your relations with him on this water matter had lasted sev-
eral years, and that he paid you such fee as you demanded
for such of your services as were performed in your capacity
of attorney as evidenced by a receipted bill dated December
ist, 1903, to which your firm's name is attached, signed in
your own handwriting. After, therefore, having continued
with this water matter for years, (BEING NOW A TRUS-
TEE FOR SOME OF OUR STOCKHOLDERS LIVING
BEYOND THE STATE) the very purpose of it being to
supply with water these cities of the bay, among which was
Oakland, you now come out as a citizen and a taxpayer
"moved by civic pride" , TO SAY NOTHING OF BEING THE PAID
ATTORNEY OF THE CONTRA COSTA WATER COMPANY, and assail
the work which you aided in bringing about. A while ago,
you would, as a "citizen and taxpayer" have strenuously
advised the people to acquire water from the Bay Cities
properties. Now, your feelings have been revolutionized
through a change in your interests, you go forth in your aspect
as a taxpayer and characterize as "chimerical" properties
with which you were formerly related. What kind of law-
yerism or taxpayerism is this? Will you give me your idea
of the moral estimate of such actions ?
Will you state to the Oakland public how many shares
of stock of the Bay Cities Water Company you now hold as
trustee for out of the State owners, whose interests you are
attempting to harm by your attacks upon the properties
represented by their shares?
Your answer to the above queries may have little or
nothing to do with the merit of the Bay Cities proposition,
but as a psychological study I think it would be simply great.
In concluding my remarks I have a parting word to
address
TO THE PEOPLE OF OAKLAND.
You have for years been struggling to procure for your-
self a municipal water system. You have for years felt the
need of this important facility to your upward movement
as a municipality in the scale of cities of the United States.
With more than forty out of fifty of the largest cities
of the United States owning their water systems, municipal
water works is not an experiment. Experience has shown
that cheap, pure water is a basic essential to the growth of a
city. I have no hesitancy in saying that if Berkeley, for
instance, should secure a municipal service and furnish water
a third cheaper than Oakland is doing, many of the productive
enterprises which would otherwise come to Oakland, would
center there. With Oakland having abundance of water at
a quarter less rate than now, the rate decreasing annually,
many of the important manufacturing enterprises of the
bay region would be done chiefly in Oakland.
You have now an opportunity to procure a municipal
plant. It happens that our company is organized for the
very purpose of furnishing you with such a plant. Foresee-
ing your necessities for some years we shaped our matters
to be able to give the best proposition possible to be made by
any seller of a plant, and we'spared no expense to that end.
We have the best water that is about the bay, water equal in
quality to any in the State, and we have vast quantities of
it; we have enough water to .supply all the population of the
Bay Country for the present and for many years to come.
The quantity we are selling to Oakland is but a very small
part of the properties we possess.
To get this municipal water plant has been a political
endeavor with you for a long time. Each time the question
has appeared in your politics, it has been defeated; you all
know by whom. The plan has always been to never allow
the question to come before the people. The people, how-
ever, are stronger than any corporation, and finally they
elected a Mayor and City Council who would do their will.
These officials sought propositions in all directions for supply-
ing the city with water and investigated all the tenders made.
They repeatedly solicited the existing company to make a
tender, but it as persistently refused. Finally the Council
selected the two best propositions offered, and submitted
them to you for your consideration. You voted favorably
upon the Bay Cities proposition, and that proposition is now
before you.
The company occupying the field is fighting you with its
wonted vigor. It does not intend that you shall have a muni-
cipal plant. Its stockholders and bondholders are on the
24
streets soliciting every acquaintance they have to vote against
the bond proposition. It has a large force of paid apents
who interview everyone they can induce to ^ay a wi rd favor-
able to their interests and have them iign <u<.h statements
for publication. It has in its employ a number of lawyers
and speakers doing campaign work in it? behalf. The material
they use, as I have shewn in this letter are fictiti< us and
mi. leading statements and mi repre entati- ns. N< t daring
to deny the fixed demand of the pe< pie to have a municipal
plant, they are setting up the cry that the exi;ting plant
should be purchased, and getting pe< pie to say that they
are in favor of buying that plant. But that plant cannot be
bought; its price is prohibitive. Throughout this entire
contest that corporation has never named a figure for its
plant; the Council could not get it to do so. Do you think
it would accept for it the $7,000,000 on which it is now re-
ceiving from the people 7% interest, which value was fixed
by the courts two years ago? Far from it; it considers the
value of its plant increasing annually by a large sum, and
the Hart decision was two years ago. The corporation would
want much more now than it was given then. Defeat these
bonds and the price asked would be very much higher than
even the price it would fix now. That sum will always be
such as the people will never consent to give. It therefore
rests with you, the voters of Oakland, not to let pass this
opportunity, which once lost may never occur again, to vote
yourself free of the conditions which you yourselves declare
arc intolerable.
OAKLAND NOW CONFRONTING A WATER FAMINE.
Oakland has exhausted her present supply of water.
She is confronting a water famine. She must have additional
water from some source. The city is practically without fire
protection. As a relief Councilman Howard proposes con-
structing a salt water plant for fire purposes to cost $65,413.
With the Bay Cities municipal plant constructed there
would be plenty of water for fire purposes, and all else, and
this expenditure would be unnecessary. Even the relief
that Mr. Howard's salt water plant would give would not long
suffice. Oakland must have more water for domestic use than
she is now getting. This only the proposed municipal t)lant
can give. The putting in of the municipal plant with the
Bay Cities supply is an absolute necessity jar Oakland.
Very truly, *
BAY CITIES WATER COMPANY,
By W. S. TEVIS, President.
THE LIBRARY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
Santa Barbara
ry
THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE
STAMPED BELOW.
50m-10,'65 (F7824s8) 9482
IS
jf
in
i-
tercsts can uiiiy dLtacjv JLJA* V*A * j.*-w
CORIPANY, not City of Oakland.
9. Work for the m$&es lor three years.
ALL THE ABOVE FOR $3,750,000.00.
Syracuse, N. Y. |
StocKlen. Calif.
UC SOUTHERN
inf~ ""
AA 000118486