View report page

37
August 1895, is to be found in sweeping away the Water
Companies altogether, and transferring all their works to
the hands of a public authority, we think that the question
thus raised is not one for us to consider here, and that it
does not come within the scope of this inquiry.
In conclusion, we may briefly summarise the results of our
consideration of the evidence placed before us in this
inquiry.
I. That the scarcity of water in the East London Water
Company's area during the summer of 1895 was due to
the following causes:—
(a) Exceptional waste, beyond the undue waste of ordinary
years, of water owing (1) to non - repair of
fractures in the consumers' pipes, brought about during
the unusually long and severe frost of the previous
winter; and (2) to excessive garden watering during
the drought in May and June.
(b) Decrease in the volume of the River Lea due to
the unprecedented drought which occurred during the
first six months of 1895.
(c) Means of storage possessed by the East London
Water Company inadequate to enable them to meet
the combined waste and deficiency of water noted
under headings (a) and (b).
We would also note under this heading that in our opinion
the inconvenience experienced by consumers was much
aggravated by the want of proper means for domestic
storage of water.
II. That although the scarcity of water undoubtedly
gave rise to considerable inconvenience and hardship,
there is no evidence to show that it had any appreciable
deleterious influence upon the public health within the
area of the East London Water Company.
III. (a.) That steps have already been taken by the
East London Water Company which should in our opinion
afford sufficient storage of water to meet any deficiency in