char- tered obligation to supply water to all citizens who wanted it.^^ The company quickly confirmed the worst fears of its critics by abandoning plans to tap the Bronx River and, instead, drilling a well at Reade and Center Streets in a densely populated neighborhood. figure 9: Hollow Log with Valve, used by The Manhattan Water Company, N.Y.C., wood and iron Courtesy The New-York Historical Society, X.47 Kroessler They also constructed a 132,600-gallon reservoir on Chambers Street, an obviously inadequate supply given an estimated need of 3 million gallons daily. Finally, rather than install iron pipes, the company used the cheaper, if time-tested alternative of hollowed logs (figure 9). In sum, there were few pipes, little water, and even that was of questionable quality. Furthennore, the charter did not limit the rates, nor did it include provisions that the company sup- ply water for such legitimate municipal needs as flushing the streets or firefighting, or even that the company repair the streets after digging them up to install the pipes. The pipes extended only to those neighborhoods where the company expected it could make a profit, leaving more than a third of the built up areas without ser- vice. When the company finally did begin replacing the hollow logs with iron, they neglected to install hydrants for firefighting, forcing the City to construct 40 large cisterns for that purpose. Even with all their cost-cutting measures, the Manhattan Com- pany collected only $10,000 a year in water rents; at the same time, the door to door water business amounted to $273,750! Conditions in the 1820s were worse than at the end of the 18th century, and Burr's company was the major impediment to securing a water supply. As one obsen/er noted In the 1830s, "There is not perhaps in the Union a city more destitute of the blessing of good water than New-York."^" The epidemic of 1832 was so devastating that after New York's system was completed, many credited the "frightful ravages of the cholera" with arousing "the minds of the citizens" to the importance of pure water. In early 1833, the Common Council requested that Albany pass legislation providing for the appointment of a water com- mission "to examine and consider all matters relative to supplying the city of New-York with a sufficient quantity of pure and wholesome water for the use of its inhabitants," and allocate funds for that pur- pose. In 1834 the Common Council again appealed to Albany for the right to boffow $2.5 million for the contemplated water works, but the Legislature lacked confidence in the City's ability to carry the pro- ject fonward and instead authorized the appointment of an indepen- dent Water Commission. The bill signed by Governor William Marcy on May 4th required the Commission to report to the Council with plans, budgets, and an estimate of anticipated revenues, but also demanded that the voters have the final say.^ In July the Council allocated $5,000 for surveys, and on Febru- ary 16, 1835, the report was ready. Rejecting the Bronx River as yielding an inadequate supply, the Commissioners proposed tap- ping the Croton watershed. The estimated cost for a dam across the Croton River, the aqueduct, and reservoirs was $4,150,000, with an additional $1,262,000 for distributing pipes. They esti- mated the annual income, based on 30,000 customers, to be $310,000.16 Central to the report was the principle of municipal ownership, rejecting absolutely the possibility of another Manhattan Water Company: "Water is one of the elements, full and necessary to existence as light and air, and its supply, therefore, ought never be made a subject of trade or speculation." A report by the Com- mittee on Fire and Water seconded that principle, while emphasiz- ing that the water should be available to all, not just those who could afford to pay for it: The control of the water of the City, should he in the hands of this Corporation, or in other words, in the hands of the people. From the •wealthy and those who would require the luxury of having it deliv- ered to their houses; and from the men of business, who would employ it in their work shops and factories, the revenue should be derived. But to the poor, and those who would be content to receive it from the hydrants at the corners and on the sidewalks, it should be as free as air, as a means of cleanliness, nourishment and health. In the hands of any other power than the Common Council, this free use would be restrained, and the experience of all other Cities (and our own may be included) teaches us the sad lesson that the trust of this power would be abused.'^'' In the three-day election that April, the voters overwhelmingly supported the proposal, 17,330 to