Richardson v. City of Greensboro

Brown, J. The purpose of this proceeding is to compel the defendants to furnish plaintiff water and sewerage service on what is known as the flat rate. From the facts agreed, it appears that the defendant city is the owner of, and operates, a municipal water and sewerage system. No separate charge is made for sewerage, as that is a part of the water service system. The rates for water service are computed according to one or the other of two methods — one called the flat and the other the meter rate. By the flat rate a consumer’s water rent is computed solely according to the number, nature and character of the faucets or openings in or *541 about bis premises, and is a fixed sum, payable quarterly in advance. On tbe meter rate, a consumer’s water rent is based solely on tbe actual amount of water used, at so much per thousand gallons, and is payable at tbe end of eacb and every month. Upon tbe failure of a consumer to pay bis water rent when due, or within ten days thereafter, bis water supply is cut off and bis service discontinued. Tbe greater number of residences in tbe city of Greensboro are now being furnished water at tbe flat rate, while about 500 of such residences are being supplied at tbe meter rate, without respect, however, to any classification. In December, 1916, plaintiff, a citizen'of Greensboro, requested defendants to install a meter on bis premises, as be preferred to pay for only water actually consumed. This was done, at expense of defendants. In May, 1917, plaintiff requested defendants to take out tbe meter and put him on tbe flat rate. The defendants refused, informing plaintiff that when a consumer gave up tbe flat rate and required a meter to be put in, it was tbe policy of tbe city authorities to continue such consumer on tbe meter rate. Plaintiff contends that such refusal is an unlawful discrimination against him. An ordinance of tbe city provides that “Water meters will be used wherever and whenever in the judgment of tbe board they should be attached.” We see no force in tbe contention that this ordinance is unreasonable and void. On tbe contrary, it appears to be a very wholesome check upon tbe flat-rate consumer to prevent tbe wasteful and extravagant use of water. We think tbére is nothing unreasonable in requiring a citizen who has voluntarily given up tbe flate rate and compelled tbe defendants to put in a meter to adhere to tbe water rate. If be were permitted to change bis mind every month tbe city could be put to much inconvenience and expense. There is no claim that tbe charge for water as measured by a meter is unreasonable, and that method is certainly as fair as can be devised, for under it a customer pays only for what be consumes. If be is wasteful and extravagant in tbe use of water, tbe loss falls on him, whereas under tbe flat rate it falls on tbe city. Unless tbe city. authorities are permitted to exercise some reasonable control over those who use tbe flat rate, that system may be grossly abused. These matters are purely administrative, and must of necessity be left to tbe sound discretion of tbe municipal authorities. It is well settled that there is not necessarily any discrimination because meter rates are charged against certain consumers and flat rates against other consumers of tbe same class, nor because small consumers are charged by tbe room and large consumers according to tbe quantity of water used. 4 McQuillan on Mun. Corp., p. 3591. *542 This subject is fully discussed in. Powell v. Duluth, 91 Minn., 53; Steward v. Water Co., 90 Col., 635; Bldg. Co. v. Water Co., 90 Va., 83, and by this Court in Horner v. Electric Co., 153 N. C., 535. The last case is on all-fours with the case at bar, and we can add nothing to what is said in the opinion. Reversed.