Everett Pushes for a City-Owned Water System
Advocates argue that water is a public necessity, not a commodity for private corporate profit.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
Of all the arguments that might be adduced in favor of a municipally owned water system, these two stand out preeminent: first, a public necessity should never be owned or controlled by a private corporation and operated solely for profit; second, the experience of the great majority of cities that own their own water systems has been that the revenue produced has paid for the plant, reduced rates to the consumers, and materially assisted in paying the running expenses of the city. Everett long ago should have gone about the work of securing its own water system. That we did not do so is no excuse for further delay. Several water sources are under discussion at the present time but the most feasible and satisfactory one appears to be the Sultan river. This river is fed by the mountain snows and the water is absolutely pure. It is estimated that a bond issue approximating $650,000 may be raised for construction and installation of the system. State and municipal bonds are considered gilt-edged investments and it is believed that twenty-year bonds can be floated at four per cent.
“A public necessity should never be owned or controlled by a private corporation and operated solely for profit.”
Everett eventually secured its water rights from the Sultan River, a move that fundamentally defined the city's growth and environmental footprint. Debates over public versus private control of essential infrastructure remain a central tension in regional politics today.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.