View report page

53
were impracticable, 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.
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 on the Thames and Lea has no bearing on the real
question whether new gathering grounds ought not to be sought
for outside that area altogether.
Considerable stress is laid on the shortness of the term of
forty years to which the Commission have limited their forecast.
The capacity of the Thames and Lea watersheds as sources of
supply may be expected to have reached, or nearly reached, their
limit about the year 1931, and then it will be impossible any