View report page

46
the consumers. The danger of waste from fittings is greater where
storage cisterns are provided than when the whole of the water is
drawn from the rising main, for the simple reason that the fittings
are more complex in the former than the latter, and are consequently
more liable to get out of order. If the waste is due to carelessness
or wilfulness of individuals, neither system nor fittings will affect it.
But that more waste takes place with constant service than
with intermittent, I very much doubt. Indeed, I believe that the
former service is the more economical of the two. Indeed, the
evidence supplied by the Water Examiners' reports on the London
Water Supply, to the Local Government Board, tend to show the
superiority of the constant service from an economical standpoint.
Thus at page 232 of the L.G.B. Report for the year 1888-1889 it
reads:—
"Apprehension of the sometimes considerable cost of the
alterations required to adapt existing houses to the requirements
of constant service, due to the generally inferior condition
of the fittings, has in some degree checked the extension of the
system, but it is generally admitted that when this difficulty
has been overcome, the result has been found to be satisfactory
alike to the consumers and the Water Companies."
Report for the year 1887-1888:—
"In general, the constant system so far as it extends,
seems to have been introduced voluntarily by the companies,
and not at the instance of local authorities or inhabitants. It
may therefore be assumed that it conduces on the whole to
economy in the use of water."
Report for the year 1888-1889 :—
"The statement made last year that the results, as far as
at present ascertained, tend to show that the average consumption
of water under the constant supply system is not so great as
under the intermittent system, is substantiated by the experience
gained in 1888, when although 4,000 additional houses were