View report page

66
(c) To make a regulation which will prevent cisterns being brought into use for supplying water
for domestic purposes, or for food for beasts, so long as they directly supply any water-closet or
sink used for receiving any solid or liquid filth.
(d) To make a regulation requiring that in all cases where any premises have a constant water
service, one or more taps shall be provided in connection with the rising main for the supply of
water for drinking purposes.
On the 16th of April a reply was received from Messrs. Hollams, Sons, Coward and Hawksley on
behalf of the seven associated metropolitan water companies, stating that the suggested regulation (a)
as quoted in the Council's letter, which would increase the authorised flush of water from two to three
gallons, raised a question of general public importance, for it would cause an enormous addition to the
consumption of water and entail increased expense to the public as regards the requirements of future
supply. The companies desired to point out that the regulations made under the Act of 1871 were
framed after full inquiry, and were based on the evidence of very competent witnesses, who considered
two gallons amply sufficient. In the opinion of the companies the adequacy of the flush for sanitary
purposes depended on the construction of the apparatus, the head or pressure under which the water
is discharged, the size of the down pipe " between the flushing apparatus and the basin of the closet,
and the construction and shape of the closet basin, rather than on the actual quantity of water
discharged." In conclusion, it was stated that the companies confidently anticipated being able to
demonstrate that a two-gallon flush was abundantly sufficient, and that no advantage whatever would
result from a greater consumption of water.
As regards the other matters referred to, Messrs. Hollams expressed the desire of the companies
to concur in any regulations which might be reasonably required for sanitary purposes without
involving consumption of water for useless objects.
With a view to obtaining a definite expression of the companies' intentions, we thought it desirable
to inquire whether the Council was to understand from their letter that the companies, while declining
to make the alteration in regulation No. 21 asked for by the Council, would comply with the Council's
request as regards the other matters, viz.—those referred to in paragraphs marked (6), (c) and (d), and
quoted above.
The companies thereupon asked for a draft of the suggested amendment marked (6), in order that
the practicability of the proposed change might be considered by their engineers. The suggested
amendment (c) was not in their opinion one which concerned the companies, and if made they would
have no means of enforcing compliance with it. They had no objection to suggestion (d).
In response to the request of the companies to be furnished with a draft to an amendment to meet
suggestion (6), we submitted to them that a means of giving effect to the suggestion would bo to add
the following definition of " water-closet " to the regulations, viz.—
The word "water-closet" in these regulations shall include "any sink used for receiving any
solid or liquid excremental filth."
and from regulation No. 20, line 2, to omit the words " other than water-closets in which hand flushing
is employed."
In answer to the companies' observations that if the regulation suggested in paragraph (c) were
made they would have no means of enforcing compliance with it, we pointed out that the object of the
suggestion was to prevent the use for domestic purposes of water supplied by a service cistern of a
water-closet.
We have now received a letter from the Kent Waterworks Company stating that they are unable to
assent to the alterations proposed by the Council, deeming them in some respects unnecessary, and in
others undesirable. They suggest that the better remedy would be found in arranging for proper
testing and stamping of all water fittings before use, thus ensuring the rejection of insufficient, defective,
or flimsy appliances and materials.
In our report presented to the Council on the 5th of December last we expressed our reasons,
arrived at after very careful inquiry, for considering that water-closet cisterns should be capable of
discharging a three-gallon flush, and our subsequent correspondence with the water companies has not
in any way affected our opinion on this point. We may add that since we last reported to the Council
on this subject, several further letters have been received from London sanitary authorities urging the
desirableness of a flush of at least three gallons.
More than six months have now elapsed since formal application was made to the London water
companies for the alteration of their regulations in the points specified, and in view of their refusal to
make the most important alteration suggested, viz., that relating to the capacity of flushing cisterns,
and of the fact that they have not intimated their intention to alter the regulations in the other points
suggested, or taken any steps to do so, we think that the Council should now ask the Local Government
Board to proceed in the manner directed in section 19 of the Metropolis Water Act, 1871. Under the
powers given by that section, if any company on being requested in writing by the Council to repeal or
alter any of the regulations for the time being in force, or to make new regulations instead of any of
the same, refuses to do so, the Local Government Board may, if they think fit, appoint a competent and
impartial person of engineering knowledge and experience to report to them on the subject, and on the
report of such person the Board may make such regulation, repeal or alteration, as they think proper.
We therefore recommend—
That a letter be addressed to the Local Government Board, communicating the purport of tho
correspondence between the Council and the London water companies as regards the suggested
alteration of the regulations made under the Metropolis Water Act, 1871, and asking the Board now
to appoint a person of engineering knowledge and experience to report to them on the subject as
provided for in section 19 of the Act.*
The London Equalisation of Rates Act, 1894.
The Equalisation of Rates Act provides that the London County Council shall in each year form
a fund equal to a rate of sixpence in the pound on the rateable value of London. The contribution
from each parish to the fund is to be in proportion to its rateable value. The fund thus formed is
to be distributed among the sanitary districts in proportion to their population. Where a sanitary
district comprises two or more parishes, and the aggregate of the contributions from such parishes
is less than the grant apportioned to the district, the difference shall be paid out of the fund to the
sanitary authority of the district, and no payment towards any equalisation charge shall be required
from any parish in the district.
Subject to the above, when the contribution from a parish is less than the grant due, the
difference shall be paid out of the fund to the sanitary authority of the district forming or comprising
the parish; and if it exceeds the grant due to the parish, the Council shall, for the special purpose of
meeting the excess, levy on the parish a county contribution as a separate item of the county rate.
* The Local Government Board ordered an inquiry as requested, and while these pages are passing
through the press the Council has received the decision of the officer thus appointed, which is to the effect that
the only amendment which is recommended is (b) relating to the water supply of slop sinks.