The Water Department War: Seattle’s Ex-Superintendent Says the City Burned $15,000

The following communication was refused publication by the Times:

Seattle, Dec. 16, 1893.

Editor Sir: I find in your paper of the 15th inst., an article headed 'The Water Department,' which bears on the face of it a conglomerated mass of false statements, which for the benefit of the public should be corrected. I propose to deal with a few facts and figures as I find them in the report of the board of public works lately issued for the year 1893, and not from my report of 1892.

First—I find this statement from the superintendent of the water department: Operating expenses for 1891, about $60,000; operating expenses for 1892, $51,671.50. This is a net saving of $8,864.50 in my favor. I then find that the operating expense of 1893 was about $60,700, an increase over my expenditures for the year 1892 of $9,033.80. Had the line of economy and prudence been pursued in 1893 and 1894 that Mr. Calligan's figures in 1893 imply, the city would today have $11,845.90 more money in the treasury than it now has. But this is not enough; it should be over $30,000, instead of $22,000. So much for the noble reform.

I now want to ask my successor, Mr. Calligan, what he did with the $9,033.50 more than it cost me to operate the same department for the same length of time, and in the face of the fact that I had laid during my incumbency about twenty-two miles of water pipe and he did not lay three-fourths of one mile; also that during my time I almost entirely revised the whole water system; I reconstructed the Broadway system, the Queen Anne system, the Beacon Hill system, reclaimed the Cherry and Seventh street spring, almost entirely remodeled the Lake Washington pumps and pumping station, redistricted the entire city, opened and completed new books of all kinds in the water department, inaugurated an entire new system of rebate slips, reconstructed the rules and regulations pertaining to the water supply—in fact, I left the department in a condition that a mere child could have successfully operated it from the time I left until the present date. I find again from Mr. Calligan's report that the operating of the pumping station at Lake Washington cost the city under his administration the sum of $31,474.00, while it only cost $26,000 under my incumbency, a net loss to the city of $4,551.56, and this is the department that I have seen mentioned from time to time in the city dailies as being a model of perfection in economy since Mr. Calligan's appointment.

Now, fellow citizens, I ask you in all due candor if this is the kind of economy that you desire—the squandering of city money in this one little department in so short a time. It would seem, Mr. Editor and fellow citizens, that the throwing away of from $10,000 to $15,000 of the city's money in 1893 by Mr. Calligan while superintendent of the city water department has been the prime factor in his honor Mayor Ronald's mind for the appointment of this gentleman, Mr. Calligan, to a membership on the board of public works. I can see no other reason for it. I say that he has squandered from $10,000 to $15,000 because he says in his report that he spent $9,033.80 more than I did in the same length of time, and I emphatically say that I could have run the water department in the year 1893 for many thousand dollars less than it cost in 1892, simply because I had during 1892 placed everything in first-class condition, thereby stopping many of the incidental expenses which had to be incurred at the start.

I glean from Mr. Calligan's report the following: Receipts for water rates in 1891 were $134,340.18; receipts for water rates in 1892 were $145,472.28; receipts for water rates in 1893 were $149,018.91. By the above figures I collected $11,127.10 more money in 1892 than my predecessor did in 1891, notwithstanding every house in the city, factories, mills and elevators were running at full blast and should have yielded a larger revenue than they did in 1892. Again I find that Mr. Calligan collected in 1893 $3,545.63 more revenue than I did in 1892. This I could, did I deem it advisable to mention the names of heavy business houses and house owners, explain and account for by showing that, owing to the depression in business, we were compelled to carry on the city books from month to month these several amounts, which I understand have been paid, or nearly so, thus swelling the collections for 1893.

Now, Mr. Editor, I have dealt with a very few of the figures given by Mr. Calligan in his report of the water department, and in the near future I propose to give you further facts and figures if they are desired. Respectfully, W. E. Wilson, Ex-Superintendent Water Department.