Seattle Cut Water Rates—Then Claimed the Lake

At the City Council last night the most important business was the passage of an ordinance for the reduction of water rates. While the council has been retrenching in the departments it has not been unmindful of the public pocket, and last night decided to reduce the price of water 20 per cent. A reduction of 10 per cent will be made at once and the other 10 per cent will go into effect January 1. The only difficulty is that the tax levy for this year, made last October, was based upon an estimated revenue from the water department, and it is not safe to use up more than 5 per cent by a reduction.

Alderman Clise said the ordinance was drafted after consultation with Superintendent Jackson. He maintained that it was never intended that the sale of water should be for the purpose of making a profit. If there was any money needed it should be obtained by raising taxes; he objected to paying a high price for water for his improved property in order that his neighbor who lived in Portland or elsewhere should have low taxes on his unimproved property.

Dr. Sweeney asked if he referred to Henry George's "unearned increment," and Alderman Jordan smiled.

The ordinance provides that the minimum monthly charge for the first gallons shall be $3; over that and up to 28,000 gallons it shall be at the rate of 10 cents per thousand. For purposes other than elevators and motors a reduction shall be made of 10 per cent, to take effect immediately, and a further reduction of 10 per cent to take effect on January 1 next. The bill passed.

The chairman of the special committee appointed to secure the opinion of Corporation Counsel Scott on the subject of the Lake Washington canal reported that he had acted in accordance with the board's instructions. He propounded the following questions to Mr. Scott: Can the city purchase the canal of the Washington Improvement Company, for the purpose of improving the water supply, the canal between Lake Union and Lake Washington? What presumptive rights have the Washington Improvement Company to the waters of Lake Washington, or can the city dig an independent canal between the two lakes, ignoring the Washington Improvement Company's canal? If the Washington Improvement Company has presumptive rights to Lake Washington, do they extend beyond the ordinary summer level of the lake?

In answer, Mr. Scott wrote: "I do not think the facts are sufficient to satisfy any presumptive right, especially as to public waters. The mere formation of a company known as the Washington Improvement Company does not give it any more right to the use of the waters of Lake Washington than any other corporation would have, because any mere claim of right to the use and enjoyment of water, however long continued, will not ripen into adverse title thereto. I think that it is the actual appropriation followed by open and exclusive possession for the time limited by our statute under claim of title which gives the right. This being so the public will have the right to the use of the water of Lake Washington, even though it would lower the lake below what is ordinarily termed 'the summer level.'

"The city of Seattle by virtue of its charter has a right to provide for the purchase or appropriation of property within or without the corporate limits of the city for its corporate uses upon making just compensation to the owners thereof; and to provide for the institution and maintenance of such proceedings as may be authorized by the laws of the state for the appropriation of private property for public use. It also has the right to supply its inhabitants with water and to authorize the construction of water works within or without the corporate limits. The power to provide water for its inhabitants carries with it the power to do any and all things necessary for the accomplishment of this purpose. If the city in its judgment thought it necessary to construct a canal, and draw the waters of any river into the lake for water purposes, it would seem to be within the granted powers of the city."

"It is, therefore, my opinion that the city would have the right to take charge of any work or improvement the object of which is for the public good, such as suggested in your letter and in this opinion."