View report page

47
WORK OF THE DEPARTMENT.
the river in the condition of last year had there been any serious pollution of the gathering
grounds. It is hoped that, with the transfer of the Water Companies' undertakings to the
Water Board, arrangements will be made not only to equalise the available storage so as to
give all parts of the Metropolis a supply of equal quality, but also to increase the accommodation
for storing unfiltered water, so as to avoid the use of flood water without full
sedimentation.
The notices of discontinuance of water supply to inhabited houses, which the Water
Companies are required under the provisions of Sec. 49 (1) of the Public Health (London)
Act, 1891, to send to the Sanitary Authority, numbered 70 as compared with 121 in 1902.

Notices to restore supply were required in 10 cases, but only one summons was required
for not restoring supply (non-payment of rates). The house was vacated by the tenant.
Sec. 48 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, provides that an occupied house without
a proper and sufficient water supply is a nuisance to be dealt with summarily under the
Act, and if a dwelling-house, is to be deemed unfit for human habitation. Nothing has, however,
been done to prevent a water company from cutting off a supply from an inhabited
house—not even to require civil process to be adopted to recover unpaid rates—but
notice has to be given to the sanitary authority within twenty-four hours of cutting off
the supply, a penalty, not exceeding £10, being provided for failure to give such notice.* In
many cases, the notice is not only unnecessary, but almost farcical. A company cuts off a
supply in the morning to allow of a repair being effected, the supply being restored later
during the day, yet a notice is despatched to the sanitary authority, thus involving a waste
of time in an unnecessary inspection. On the other hand, cases occur which show what little
protection the provision affords to the public. Such a case occurred during the past vear.
On February 12th, 1903, information was received that certain premises in "A" mews
were flooded with sewage, and that an empty house—lately licensed premises—was without
water supply. From inquiries made, it was found that the "empty" house had been inhabited
by caretakers—man and wife—for several months, and that the house had been without a water
supply during the whole period. The drain was choked, and the sewage overflowing into the
adjacent" premises. The Water Company stated that the water had been cut off" at the
request of the owners" on 28th May, 1902, and that, the house being then uninhabited, it
was not necessary to forward a notice. The caretakers were put in during the following
month, and they were compelled to beg water from the adjoining occupiers.
* Under Sec. 4 of the "Water Companies (Regulation of Powers) Act, 1877," a supply cannot be cut off for
non-payment of water-rate when the owner and not the occupier of the house is liable to pay the rate. There is
no definition of "owner " or "occupier " in the Act.