View report page

53
Engineer to the London County Council, was the most important.
Mr. Binnie's evidence was to the effect that the supply
that could be drawn from the Thames and the Lea was wholly
insufficient to meet the future wants of Greater London; and
he stated that, in his opinion, deeper storage reservoirs in the
Thames Valley were impractible, and, further, that any large
increase in quantity pumped from the chalk formations would
only ultimately diminish the amount of surface water in the
various contributory streams, and therefore could not be
reckoned on for increasing the supply.
The Water Committee of the London County Council issued
a memorandum by its Chairman and a series of reports by the
principal officers of the Council on the report of the Royal
Commission on the Metropolitan Water Supply by which it will
be seen that the conclusions of the Royal Commission are
controverted to a certain extent. An admirable synopsis of the
views of the London County Council and its chief officials
appeared in the British Medical Journal, which is here closely
followed.
The Want of Finality in the Commission's
Recommendations.
Mr. Basset Hopkins, the Chairman of Committee, in his
memorandum, insists strongly on the narrowness of the scope
of the inquiry by the Royal Commission, and points out that
mischievous consequences may follow, and the Council may be
grievously hampered in its action if people accept the idea that
the report was the result of an all-embracing investigation of the
general subject. The real question which is of most interest to
Londoners is what is the best course for London to pursue
under the circumstances? But this never entered into the
reference to the Commission, and in considering their report it
has constantly to be borne in mind that whatever they say in
support of the prospective sufficiency (for forty years only) of
the watersheds of the Thames and Lea has no bearing on the