London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972

View report page

Hackney 1896

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Hackney]

This page requires JavaScript

62
THE EAST LONDON WATER COMPANY AND SHORT
SUPPLY DURING THE SUMMER OF 1896.
On the 11th of November, 1895, the Inspectors appointed by
the Local Government Board to enquire into the failure of the East
London Water Company's Supply during the summer of that year,
presented their report thereon, in which amongst other things they
remark (Page 15): "The conditions presented by the year 1895
were very exceptional. An unprecedented drought, following a
most unusually severe frost, created difficulties not likely to be
exceeded in the future, and it may be assumed, for purposes of
calculation, that a maximum strain was this year put on the
resources of the company," and again (page 16) "That steps have
already been taken by the East London Water Company which
should in our opinion afford sufficient storage of water to meet any
deficiency in the supply of water within their district for many years
to come."
On the 21st of July, 1896, eight months from the writing of the
above, the following notice, furnishing a curious commentary upon
the Inspectors' opinion, was issued by the East London Water
Company to its customers.
EAST LONDON WATER WOKKS CO.—THE EXTREME DROUGHT.
Notice is hereby given that it is found necessary to restrict the supply
of water to six hours a day. The time of turning on will vary to suit the
convenience of the respective districts.
Consumers are advised to fill any available vessels while the water is
on—to use it only for strictly domestic purposes—and beyond all things to
avoid waste in any form. Persons are especially cautioned against using
water for garden or other similar purposes.
By order,
21st July, 1896. J. A. CROOKENDEN, Secretary.
This was the beginning of another water failure, which in the
opinion of the Government Inspectors, had been provided against
for many years to come, and which brought about inconveniences as
great as the failure in the previous year, and in my opinion serious
injury to health in the Hackney district.