View report page

17
very little inconvenience was caused by the absence or
scarcity of water in the parish. The New River Company's
supply was fully maintained, but a few complaints were
received of short supply on houses situated on high ground
supplied by the West Middlesex Company. In July I presented
a report to your Vestry on the question of "the
expediency or otherwise of constant water supply being
afforded to the whole parish or to any portion or portions
thereof." That report stated that 4,072 houses in the parish
were on the constant supply system in the district furnished
by the West Middlesex Company, and 300 nouses in the
district served by the New River Company. Both companies
now give constant supply as estates are laid
out in all districts. By the various Acts and Regulations
under which the companies derive their powers, the West
Middlesex cannot be called upon to give constant supply
under pressure to any higher level than 200 feet above the
level of high water mark at Hammersmith Bridge, and the
New River need not serve constant supply higher than the
top of any house which shall be under the level of 300 feet
above Trinity high water mark.
The advantages of a constant supply are so obvious that I
had no hesitation in expressing my opinion that the whole
parish, where the levels would permit, should have constant
supply, and that this should be undertaken by the respective
companies in sections. To have the full benefit of constant
supply, the drinking and cooking water should be drawn
from the rising main or service pipe by a screw down drawoff
tap, and a tap should be provided for turning off the
water from the main in frosty weather. A communication
was subsequently addressed by your Vestry to the London