The analysis of potable water : with special reference to the determination of previous sewage contamination / by Charles Watson Folkard ; with an abstract of the discussion upon the paper, edited by James Forrest.

Folkard, Charles Watson

Date:: 1882

Credit: The analysis of potable water : with special reference to the determination of previous sewage contamination / by Charles Watson Folkard ; with an abstract of the discussion upon the paper, edited by James Forrest. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

56/66 page 56

$Jlr. ra_\ loi-. The qTiestion whether the Lambeth water-supply woiihl be aftected by the sewage is one of considerable importance aud no less difficulty, the evidence upon this point being very conflicting. It will be seen that the inspector is distinctly of opinion that, when the pumps are at work, the subsoil water does travel from the direction of the proposed farm towards the intake of the Lambeth Com]iany, aud evidence was adduced to show that wells were aftected by the pumping at the Lambeth works, and that some of them were within a cpiarter of a mile of the farm. At the inipiiry the Joint Board offercd to construct a puddle-wall to prevent any flow of water from the farm towards the Lambeth wells; luit this wall would only extend along tlio west aud part of the north sides of the farm, and probably could not be relied upon in case of floods. It is at least doubtful, therefore, whether the irrigation with a large (luautity of sewage of so extensive an area of land so situate A\'ould not aftect the particiilar source of water-supply referred to, and the Board would incur very grave responsibility if they sanctioned a scheme which might prejudicially aftect the water- supiily of any part of the Metropolis. In the l^eport to the President of the Local Government Board on the petition from the Lower Thames Valley Main Sewerage Board, dated the 21st of May, 1880, Mr. Harrison had stated : The objections of the Tjambeth and other Water companies demand serious attention. The contention of the Lambeth Water Company is that they are enipowered nnder their Act of 1848 to draw water from the Thames at Thames Ditton, and that by their Act of 1871 they have ]K)wer to draw water from the sul)soil of their projierty at West JMolesey, as well as from the Thames at the same jilace; further that they may have occasion to draw water from the Thames at Ditton, and that they actually draw largely from the subsoil at ]\lolcsey, that the source of supply in each of these cases would be polluted by the establishment of tlie proiiosed sewage-farm, and that to avoid such pollution the Joint Board should not be permitted to bring the sewage of the district on to the proposed land. To show thfvt the Joint Board considered this contention was not frivolous, it is sufficient to state that they proposed to insert a clause in the Bill presented to Parliament in 187'J requiring the water company comj^ulsorily to close their intakes below the confluence of the rivers Mole and Ember with the Thames, and at the inquiry they expressed their willingness to construct a drain,$