98 MINIMUM RATE BASED ON FRONTAGE 



at the start and the works never bear the burden of it. Where 

 this is done the investment in works is correspondingly reduced 

 and the water rates will normally be lower than they otherwise 

 would be. In effect the takers own the distribution system and 

 cannot be expected to pay a return upon its value and so get 

 their water cheaper. 



This system differs only from that recommended by the 

 Coffin Committee, in that the assessment is paid once for all by 

 the taker when the pipe is first laid instead of being paid as an 

 annual service charge computed to cover interest and depre- 

 ciation, or a part of them, on the value of the pipe. The cost of 

 operation, taxes and other expenses is, of course, left to be pro- 

 vided for in some other way, but in general so far as the distribu- 

 tion of cost among different classes of consumers is concerned, 

 it is the same as that outlined in the Coffin report. 



This general method of assessing the cost of distribution 

 has a great deal of merit, especially where rates are being adopted 

 for an entirely new system. The radical departure from common 

 practice has probably been the principal reason for limiting its 

 use and this will probably continue to be a bar to its general 

 adoption. It is especially important in any general study of 

 water rates in American cities that this method be kept clearly 

 in mind, however, because in those cases where it is used the water 

 rates are much lower than they otherwise would be, and com- 

 parison of water rates in cities following this system with water 

 rates in cities following the more common method cannot be 

 properly made. 



