Metropolis water supply. Report of Thomas Telford ... February 1834, on the means of supplying the Metropolis with pure water.

  • House of Commons
Date:
[1834]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Metropolis water supply. Report of Thomas Telford ... February 1834, on the means of supplying the Metropolis with pure water. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    18/38 (page 8)
    large settling reservoir on the north side thereof, from whence it passes by pipes- under the same river into smaller reservoirs, from which the pumps are supplied. From this arrangement it is evident, that although the water taken from the reservoirs and distributed is in fact from the river Lea, yet it is the water of the Lea subjected to the contamination of the district through which it passes in and below the neighbourhood of Bow, and to the constant agitation of the tides in driving upwards towards the Waterworks during the flood-tides ; thus rendering it no better, as far as regards matter held in suspension, than the water of the Thames taken up in its passage through the Metropolis. After the Commissioners of Inquiry into the quantity and quality of water supplied to the Metropolis had hnade their Report in 1828, the East London Waterworks Company took immediate steps to improve their water both in quantity and quality, by obtaining powers under an Act of Parliament, in the year 1829 [40 Geo. 4, cap. Local and Personal], to take water from the river Lea at or near Lea Bridge Mills, above the influence of the tide, and to convey it from thence to the Works at Old Ford, by means of a new aqueduct (insulated from all other w ater), into settling reservoirs upwards of eighteen acres in extent, from which it passes into reservoirs, out of which the pumps are supplied as before stated. These Works are now on the eve of completion, and will be in action in the month of June of the present year, within the time allowed by the Act of Parliament. In the prosecution of these improvements, the East London Waterworks Com¬ pany have expended upwards of 50,000 /., without having the power of imposing additional rates or charges on their customers; the maximum charges of house¬ keepers or private consumers being fixed by the Act. Having assured myself, by a personal survey of the Waterworks at Old Ford, and by an inspection of the new aqueduct and reservoirs now near completion, for taking water from the river Lea at the tail of the Lea Bridge Mills, that the above statements are correct; in which survey and inspection every facility was afforded by the Directors of the Company, in furnishing information, and in the production of all documents deemed by me nece^ary for the investigation of the subject, I have no hesitation in stating, that, as\ far as the East London Water¬ works are concerned, the improvements necessary for ensuring a better supply of pure water to their district have been anticipated by that Company. The only point upon which any question might arise is rather of a prospective nature, inasmuch as it relates to the sewage of the district on the west side of the river Lea, between Tottenham Mills and Lea Bridge Mills, which sewage is now discharged into the Lea; but should a greater number of buildings, or a town, grow up on that side of the river, it would then be advisable to carry the sewage of that district clear of the portion of the river above named, either by conveying it under the river at one or more points, or by connecting it with the Hackney sewage, which goes into the tideway of the river Lea below Old Ford Lock. But this is a part of the subject which might with propriety come under the control of a general commission for the conservation of the water supplied to the Metropolis. Regarding the quantity of water now used, or likely to be required by this Com¬ pany, there is no doubt the river Lea possesses an abundance. By the returns made to the Commissioners of Inquiry in 1828, it appears that the quantity then distributed by this Company was 11 cubic feet per second in the aggregate; and making the due allowances for the extra quantity used in the warmest weather at 25 per cent, increase, adding moreover 25 per cent, for increase since that time, the amount would now be about 16 cubic feet per second, and allowing another 25 per cent, for future demands, it gives a total of 20 cubic feet per second, as the greatest probable quantity required by this Company. Now, it appears that the river Lea (as above stated in the Report on the New River) produces, in the times of shortest water, a surplus quantity of 94 cubic feet per second, after deducting what might probably be wanted by the New River Company in times of drought; and as the quantity required for the East London Company is not taken off until after passing through Lea Bridge Mills, and sup¬ plying all the wants of the navigation, there will still remain the above surplus of 94 cubic feet per second, for supplying the probable maximum demand of 20 cubic feet per second required by the East London Company. Thomas Telford. London, 17 February 1834.