View report page

80
Legislation—The Metropolis Water Act, 1897. The most important provisions of this Act are
included in the following sections—
1.—(1.) Any water consumer or any local authority may complain to the Railway and Canal
Commission that any of the metroDolitan water companies has failed to perform some statutory duty of the
company, and the Commission may hear and determine that complaint, and if satisfied of such failure
order the company within the time limited by the order to fulfil the duty, and may, if they think fit, by
any such order, impose any penalty for such failure which can be imposed under any Act, and enforce
any such order in like manner as any other order of the Commision.
(2.) If at any time complaint as to the quantity or quality of the water supplied by any of the
metropolitan water companies for domestic use is made to the Railway and Canal Commission, by any
water consumer or local authority, the Commission may hear and determine such complaint, and if
satisfied that the complaint is well founded, may order the company, within such reasonable time as is
specified in the order, to remove the ground of such complaint, and may enforce such order in like
manner as any other order of the Commission, and may award damages to the complainant.
(3.) All enactments relating to the Railway and Canal Commission (except section two of the
Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894, which restricts the power to award costs) shall, with the necessary
modifications, apply to the Railway and Canal Commission for the purpose of their jurisdiction under
this Act.
(4.) This Act shall be in addition to and not in substitution for any existing proceedings or remedy.
2.—A local authority m;jy aid any water consumer in obtaining the determination of any question
which appears to the local authority to be of interest to water consumers within the district of such
local authority with respect to the rights, duties, and liabilities of any of the metropolitan water
companies in reference to the quantity or quality of water supplied or the charges made by them. A
local authority aiding any legal proceedings under this section may, if the court think fit, be made a
party to the proceedings, and shall be liable for costs accordingly.
Insufficiency of water supply—The medical officer of health of Mile-end Old-town states that—
"Although this year there was no drought during the summer months, there are many tenement dwellings
in the east-end of London where cisterns above forty feet from the ground level were not supplied with
water, and this caused great inconvenience. There was a break down in the Thames main in August,
which may have affected the suppl7." The medical officer of health of Whitechapel also says there
was shortness of supply in some parts of the district in the summer; "an accident to one of the
mains appeared to be the cause, and when this was rectified no more than the customary occasional
inconveniences were met with."
Constant supply—The annual report of the chief officer of the Council's Public Control department
shows that the constant water supply was extended during the year ending the 31st March,
1898, so that at that date 96'5 per cent of the houses in London were thus receiving their water.
Flooding from the Lea.
The medical officer of health of Hackney reports that early in the year, after rather excessive
rain, the river Lea overflowed its banks between the East London Waterworks Company's offices at
Lea-bridge and Spring-field, and flooded the cottages on the western side of the river and the Millfields.
He gives a list of sixty houses thus flooded, on inspection of which he found the water had
risen about eighteen inches above the ground floor. It appeared, he says, that the houses were flooded
in a similar manner a few years before, but the more recent flood appeared to be out of all proportion
to the amount of rainfall preceding. "The importance of this flood depends on the fact whether it
was an accidental event, due to an extraordinary fall of water in the Lea valley, or whether any
change had taken place in the banks of the river by which flood waters are more confined to the
course of the stream, or that their exit by the natural channel is restricted." The medical officer of
health communicated with the chief engineer to the East London Water Company, who in reply
stated that " the Hackney marshes have been embanked and no water can spread over them or reach
the various branches of the river at lower levels. All the marshes on the Essex side were under
water. Should these be banked eventually, the backing up of the river to even higher extent than on
the 6th and 7th February must ensue in time of great floods." On this the medical officer of health
comments as follows—
While this is no doubt a reasonable explanation, I do not think it goes far enough. I understand
that the Hackney-marshes are not the only lands which have been embanked to prevent flooding from
the river. The immense reservoir recently completed was constructed on a site contiguous to the river,
and which I have every reason to believe used to receive storm waters on the same occasions as the
Hackney-marshes. Moreover, certain works have been carried out under the Lea Valley Drainage Act,
1892, for the prevention of flooding of lands adjacent to the river. The net result of these works has been
to allow storm waters to get into the lower parts of the river without causing any floods, but it is obvious
that unless the outlet for storm waters from the lower part of the river is increased in the same
proportion, the river must get overcharged and overflow its banks.
Considering the whole of these circumstances, it is probable that the embanking of the Hackneymarshes
by the London County Council was instrumental, to some extent, in bringing about the flooding
of the houses on the west bank of the river referred to above, but I am of opinion that the other works
referred to, and carried out by the East London Water Company and the Lea Valley Drainage Commissioners
were also to a similar extent responsible.
It is obvious that the waters of a river which during heavy rains is accustomed to overflow its banks
and flood low-lying lands will, if the banks are raised, rise considerably during such times and probably
overflow other parts if the water cannot get away fast enough by the natural channel of the river.
Endeavours are being made to reclaim from the river sueh of the low-lying lands as are capable of
being utilised. This is especially the case in our district. We may then confidently anticipate that the
flooding of the houses named above, which hitherto has been a rare event, will become more frequent;
and the object of recording this event is to consider what, if any, remedy can be applied to prevent the
recurrence of floods to the detriment of inhabited houses in this district. It is clear that the reclaiming
of low-lying land near the river, and its utilisation, cannot be stopped, so the problem to be solved is
how to allow storm waters to pass rapidly enough away to prevent the flooding of inhabited houses on
the river banks.
The first suggestion is to raise that part of the river bank adjacent to the dwellings, or, if this is
not practicable, to construct some channel of relief to be used during the times of flood; but the remedy