View report page

48
Beihnal-green.—Letter from vestry clerk, dated November 17th, 1892, stated that the
Committee had received no complaints as to the condition of the canal, and that the
condition at that time was not unsatisfactory.
Limehouse.—Letter from the clerk to the district board stating that in the opinion of the
board it was desirable that the Regent's canal should be thoroughly dredged and scavenged
periodically, and that the condition of the towing path should be improved.
During 1893 Dr. Young inspected the canals on behalf of the Council, and in June, 1893, I
presented to the Committee his report, which contained a detailed statement of the several sources of
pollution found in the canals in the whole of their course through London.
Dr. Young did not at the time of his inspection find the water in the canals offensive, but he
found that drainage from some privies and stables from the Zoological-gardens, as well as soakage from
dung-heaps, entered the water. He also found that surface washings of the wharves and of the whole
length of the towing path, often polluted with horse droppings, together with the refuse and bilge water
of barges, contributed to the pollution. In one instance he found pollution from the premises of a
paper-stainer, and he further pointed out that among the sources of nuisance were the dead animals
which were found floating on the surface, and the effluvia given off by barges carrying house and street
refuse and the spent lime and tar of gasworks. He stated that although the water was constantly
undergoing some change through the opening of locks for the passage of barges, there was no movement
of water comparable to the flow of a river, and as a result the various matters which entered the canal
waters either floated on the surface or sank to the bottom, where they rendered the mud offensive.
The passage of barges frequently disturbed this mud, and at such times nuisance was likely to be
caused, particularly in the basins, in the course of the canal, and at the dead ends such as Cumberland
basin, where refuse tended to accumulate. Dr. Young was informed at a wharf in this basin that the
water was not scavenged more frequently than once a month, and that during the summer the water
became covered with scum which gave rise to nuisance.
Dr. Young summarized the conditions which tend to make the canal water foul as follows—
1. The stagnant condition of the water.
2. The collection of mud at the bottom of the canal.
3. The pollution by sewage and other matters, though of small extent.
4. The collection of objectionable and decomposing material on the surface of the water,
due to imperfect scavenging.
5. The passage of offensive cargoes along the canal, and especially those from the gasworks.
A copy of this report was communicated to the sanitary authorities concerned, and in December,
1893, a conference of these authorities and the Public Health Committee was held at the county hall.
Subsequently the following report was presented by the committee to the Council—
We have for some time had before us the question of the insanitary condition of the Regent's and
Grand Junction canals, referred to us by the Council. Dr. Young, on behalf of the Council, made a
careful inspection of those parts of the canals which are in the county of London. The medical officer's
report presenting Dr. Young's report on the canals, dated June, 1893, was circulated among the members
of the Council and communicated to the safiitary authorities concerned. In December, 1893, a conference
was held at the County Hall between the Public Health Sub-Committee and the various sanitary
authorities in the county through whose districts these canals run.
From the report of the medical officer, it would appear that while a certain small number of
pollutions occur from premises on the banks of the canals, the main reasons for the undoubtedly foul
condition of the Regent's-canal are—
(1.) The collection of mud at the bottom of the canal from insufficient dredging.
(2.) The insufficient flow of water producing an almost stagnant condition.
(3.) The collection of decomposing material on the surface of the water.
(4.) The droppings from barges and the smell of refuse from gasworks while conveyed
by barges.
The only serious discharge of sewage into the canal was from the Zoological-gardens.
The conference was held with a view of ascertaining what steps the various authorities had taken
for the improvement of the canals and with what result, and also if possible to arrive at some common
decision as to the best course to be adopted.
It was stated that the Zoological Society had instructed an engineer to investigate the whole
question of the drainage of the gardens, and that his report was awaited. With regard to other causes
of pollution, some local authorities had been able to get nuisances abated while others had not. This
might have been due to some nuisances being more difficult to localise and to deal with than others, or
to the differences in the procedure of the several local authorities. Hackney for instance succeeded in
getting mud dredged, while St. Marylebone stated that notices had been served but not complied with.
Eventually the delegates all undertook to urge their various authorities to take action with regard
to all pollutions of the canals from the banks, it being understood that should this action fail to secure
the proper sanitary condition of the water, the Council would take whatever steps it could for the
improvement of the flow. The delegates were also informed that should their various authorities fail
to take action with regard to the pollution of the canals in their respective districts, it would be our
duty to recommend the Council to take proceedings in default under the powers given by section 100 of
the Public Health (London) Act, 1891.
We have considered the power of the Council with regard to an increased flow of water down the
canals. The canal companies have written, stating that the stagnant condition of the water is incidental
to all canals which do not canalize rivers, and it is not in their power to pass more water down the
canals. We are advised that the statutory obligations of the companies may be considered to apply to
navigation rather than to the prevention of pollution. Both companies appear to have power to sell
water not required for the purpose of navigation. With regard to the Zoological-gardens, which is
Crown property, it is hoped that arrangements will be made for the diversion of its sewage from the canal.
The cleansing of the wharves and frontages is the duty of the occupier, the companies being only
concerned with the water-way. With regard to dredging the mud along the whole length of the canals
the Council has no more power than is given by the Public Health Act when a nuisance exists, and then
only in default of a sanitary authority.
The only possible other means available is the Rivers Pollution Act, which is applicable to canals.
This Act, however, is cumbrous in its action, slow in its operation, longer notices having to be given,
and nothing could be done while proceedings under any other Act were pending. If, however, no good
results from the efforts of the local authorities it might be worth while to suspend any other action
while notices are served under the Rivers Pollution Act. Legislation is evidently wanted to enable the
central authority to deal directly with the canal in its course through London.