retail purchasers. The beneficiary here is the user, and in almost all cases he is made to pay. He is as a rule charged according to the quantity he uses, which may be recorded by meter, and payment made at a fixed rate per unit quantity, or the amount may be limited by a certain size of pipe, and a contract entered into, laying down the charge per month.

It is thus apparent that many consumers, such as tenants of small houses, lodgers and occupants of hotels, or residential flats, do not pay directly for the water they use. The relative quantity taken by these different classes of users varies in different towns.

I. PAYMENT BY RATE.

The most common method of charging for water is on an assessment basis; either a percentage on the rental, or on the valuation of the property. In Pretoria property is classed in grades rising by £250 steps to £2000, and thereafter by £2000 steps. The annual charge starts at £2 for property under £250, and increases by £1 for every step. In most cases this rate is collected from the owners -a practice which is a great saving to the Municipality.

In many British towns the rate is stated in pence per £1 of rental, and it is generally collected from the occupier of the premises. The rate is frequently divided into public rate and domestic rate, the former, or at least a portion of the former, being paid by the owner, and the latter, except in the case of property of low value, being paid by the tenant. This system shows an endeavour to make the beneficiaries pay according to the benefits they derive.

It should be noted that id. in the 1 public rate may bring in much more than 1d. in the £1 domestic rate. Table III. gives examples of rating in different towns.

2. PAYMENT BY OPPORTUNITIES OF USING.

Most Municipalities who charge by rate as above, have, in addition, fixed charges for certain users beyond the necessities for domestic purposes, e.g., baths, bake-houses, builder's yards, gardens, greenhouses, horses and cattle, etc., etc. It is sometimes optional whether the fixed charge will be made, or a meter put on. Such a system is quite just, and where these extras can be looked upon as luxuries, the rate for them should be high compared to the domestic rate, which is to cover the expense of the water considered as a necessity for health, e.g., garden water must be looked on as a luxury compared with water used for household purposes.

This system is made use of in some towns where a fixed annual charge is made for the use of a pipe from the street main for the supply of a house, and an additional charge is made if a hosepipe is used for garden watering.

In South African towns, garden watering is an important item, and the quantity used on it is frequently in excess of that used for

house purposes. It would not be unjust to put such a price on garden watering that on an average the rate paid for it would be higher than for water used in the house. If the consumer does not intend to use water on his garden, all outside taps should be removed, so that there may be no temptation. The water inspectors will know those who pay for garden water, and if they observe a garden which has no right to water looking surprisingly green, they will watch, and if they discover the irrigator at work prosecute him. A few spare meters kept to put on the pipes of consumers who are suspected of abusing their privileges will give useful information, so that occasionally an offender will be convicted. If a penalty be exacted others will take warning.

Table IV. gives the tariff in some towns.

3. PAYMENT BY THE QUANTITY CONSUMED.

It is so natural to charge for any commodity by the quantity taken, that it appears to be necessary to make out a strong case to justify any other procedure. And yet there are comparatively few towns where water is supplied solely by meter. Berlin was one of the first of these, and by 1878 the supply was given in no other way. Other towns in all parts of the world have followed the example, but in America the system has been taken up more keenly than anywhere else. The points brought out in its favour are :—

I. Each consumer is himself responsible for the amount he is charged, and consequently the payment is just.

2. Owing to all consumers having an interest in the prevention of waste, the quantity of water used is restricted, and consequently the supply of water available will go further.

There are two systems of charging by quantity. (1) The dribble system, where the supply-pipe is restricted in diameter, so that the discharge only amounts to a limited quantity per month. For this system cisterns are a necessity, and it is objectionable to have to draw drinking water through a cistern. The consumer thus for a certain payment has a limited quantity of water supplied in a continuous small flow. This system is used at Cape Town. (2) The meter system, where the quantity drawn by any customer is not restricted, but it is measured and he is charged accordingly. He is charged for the water used, and, in addition, is generally charged a rent for the meter. A minimum is fixed (say 1,000 gallons per month), which must be paid for, and thus customers have nothing to save by taking less than that quantity.

METERS.

It is presumed that the type of meter employed is one which will record accurately. Many Municipalities know to their cost that

some meters of the inferential type are apt to record low when they get old, and sometimes not to record at all when the supply is drawn very slowly. Unscrupulous customers, knowing this, will arrange to draw water continuously at a slow rate, and thus get with a low meter record a quantity which, if drawn through the meter in a short time at a rapid rate, would be recorded considerably higher. It does not do to condemn a system because it fails in a particular case where bad materials are used, but it must be borne in mind that there are meters on the market which are not satisfactory under all conditions, and that the customer who thinks his monthly bill too high, can induce the meter to record more to his liking. On that account, only positive meters will be considered.

When the property supplied is above a certain value, the occupier or consumer will probably pay. The tenant of such property, for the sake of keeping the monthly bill down, is not likely to restrict himself in the quantity of water used in the house, but he will see that there is no waste, and he will probably not give his garden the allowance it would have through an unmetered pipe.

In property of low value the owner will pay. In this case the occupier has no interest in saving, and has no reason for restricting himself. In poor class property this is possibly fortunate, as there is otherwise a danger of the quantity used being restricted beyond the limits of sanitary requirements. The meter thus fails to reduce the consumption in the case of tenants occupying property of low value.

Meters in Continental Towns.

In Berlin, Naples, Vienna, and other Continental towns, the success of the meter system is greatly due to the habits of the people, who are accustomed to living in flats. Each building contains several distinct dwellings, and 67 inhabitants per house was the average in Berlin in 1890.

In Berlin the Municipality sold the water wholesale to the landlords, who paid for it by the quantity and distributed it to the various tenants, who were the consumers, and paid for it indirectly in rent. Had the distinct dwellings of the 67 inhabitants in each block of buildings been separate, each with its own meter, there would have been probably at least 10 dwellings and 10 meters, and the meter charge of the town would have been increased tenfold, and no further saving in the water would have been effected. As it was, the meter rental was 2.37 per cent. of the revenue for water, hence it would have been 23.7 per cent., which appears excessive. It may be noted that in the year 1903-04 the Johannesburg Water Works Company's meter rental amounted to 6.25 of the water revenue, and the meter expenditure amounted to 12 per cent. of the other maintenance and management expenses. The rent charged by that Company (2/6 per mensem) does not appear to have been too high.

Meter Rent.

The chief argument against metering all service pipes is the high cost which the system involves. Table V. gives the annual charges on a positive meter for domestic use, and shows that the customer will have to pay about 3/- per month for knowing how much water he uses compared with his neighbour. If the correct rent for an inferential meter, in place of a positive one is worked out, it will be found to be not much less. The first cost will be lower, but the maintenance and depreciation will be higher. These figures may appear high, but the Rand Water Board's charges are much higher in proportion, amounting annually to over 60 per cent. of the meter cost. The question is, could not the Engineer devise a more economical method for distributing the water?

In some towns the customer is charged this meter rent, and as it is constant for a large consumer or a small, it falls heavier on the latter. Some towns, such as Johannesburg, put it into maintenance, and the customers are only charged for the water they use. This is more just to the consumer, since the "life" of a meter depends rather on the amount of work it does than on the number of years it is at work.

It is true that there are few commodities which are not sold by the quantity. Though statistics of cost, in the case of water, are generally worked out per 1000 gallons, it is manifest that the quantity is not the only item that controls the cost. With the exception of water-rights and filtration, almost all the expenses in waterworks are for transport. The customer pays not so much for the water as for the convenience of having it brought to his house. The cost of the water at the intake is generally a small percentage of its cost at the consumer's tap. The reservoirs, the pipes, the valves, the pumps are all to regulate the transport of the water just as much as the sidings, the lines, the stations, and the locomotives are in the case of a railway. On a railway one pays for goods per ton per mile, and would it be unreasonable to pay for water per 1000 gallons per mile? Some consumers draw their supply much nearer the intake than others, and so make use of a correspondingly less extent of piping, but they receive no consideration for this. It is a matter of policy to make no difference in charge for the distance the water is brought, and so the Rand Water Board has a uniform rate over its district, though more profit is made off some consumers than others. The Metropolitan Water Board has not yet brought in a uniform tariff for the whole district, and the old company's rates still hold.

In a gravitation scheme one can see that the expenses will not necessarily increase in the same ratio as the quantity drawn. But figures show that even where every drop is pumped, sometimes pumped twice, the increased cost of pumping by itself is by no means in proportion to the increased quantity lifted. Even the coal bill does not increase at the same rate as the quantity of water pumped

(see Figs. 3 and 4, showing statistics from Atalanta and London Companies). It is therefore not correct to say the expenses are in proportion to the quantity supplied.

When tolls were taken on the turnpike roads, an endeavour was made to charge travellers in proportion to their use of the roads. This system has been given up, and the present method of assessment is not considered unjust.

WATER CONSUMPTION.

We shall now consider how the water sent into town is used up. Towns differ so much from one another that the particular figures of one town will not represent an average, and it is not suggested that average figures can be made to apply to any individual A fair consumption in Britain is about 35 gallons per head per day, allocated as on Figure 5. Waste appears to be excessive, but engineers have to admit that it is difficult to keep it lower.

case.

In 1902-03 the Johannesburg Waterworks sold 76.4 per cent. of what was pumped. In 1903-04 the Johannesburg Waterworks sold 78.7 per cent. of what was pumped. This year the Johannesburg Municipality sold about 80 per cent. of what was bought.

The point to be noted is that the metering of consumers' pipes only puts control on a certain portion of the total consumption, and this is not a very large portion. Consider the case of a town with 35 gallons per head per day consumption (which is a good average for Great Britain), and with a proper water carriage sewerage system, where the sanitary arrangements are provided with 2-gallon flush cisterns. The amount sent down the drains from these cisterns is at least 6 gallons per head per day. There is no control over this. Municipal and trade supplies may be put at 10, and waste at 8, gallons per head per day. The balance for domestic use is only 11 gallons, and this is the item on which the consumer can save. In a warm climate the amount used is much greater. Take Pretoria, for example; baths, stoep washing, garden watering, etc., raise the consumption to about 80 gallons per head per day for domestic purposes, the remaining 24 going to street watering, trade consumers, etc.

Water Consumption in United States.

The return of water used in American towns shows a consumption per head per day of anything up to 300 gallons. Consumers taking such quantities must be considered as drawing in bulk. 300 gallons per head per day for a family of six means 54,000 gallons per month, while many Germiston families are content with 600. Such figures are only accountable to English engineers by admitting that the waste is enormous. Meters have been largely adopted in