( 177 )
2225
7
8
9
2230
A-When I was here in 1889-90, I drew up a Water Ordinance. That Water Ordinance was considered by the Sanitary Board and approved-I believe almost un- animously--and was further approved by the Executive Council. It was then laid by them before the Legislative Council, of course in the usual manner, and certain clauses were objected to by the unofficial members. That is to say, there were clauses in that original Ordinance by which every house was to have a meter and that is, in my opi- nion, the only remedy for waste. These clauses were entirely objected to by the unofficial members. They said it was too much trouble and that the landlords could not look after the people. Consequently, and, I regret to say, on my advice, the Gov- ernor withdrew it and directed me to revise it. I did so and put in certain clauses which I thought would bring about the desired end, without having universal meters. I had not much time to do it in-only about ten days for re-drafting and passing. However, I believe that if these provisions for repression of waste had been strenuously enforced, there would have been very much less consumption. That they would have effected a reduction, is shown in Mr. COOPER's reports. I cannot find that they have ever been applied since then.
Q-And do you think there is any reason why they should not now introduce
these meters into each house ?
A-The only objection is the prime cost of the meters. This, however, is an in- terest-bearing asset, for a meter rent is paid by the householder covering interest, sinking-fund and maintenance. But before I did that, that would involve the altering of the Act, and I should see what could be done by applying the existing Act, as it stands.
Q-And your impression is, that that Act has not been applied strenuously ? A-No. Experimental attempts have been made. I see them mentioned in Mr. COOPER's reports. Of course, lately I have not troubled my mind very much about them.
Q-Then is it your opinion that these clauses dealing with check of consumption have not been worked strenuously?
A-Not strenuously. I understand that nothing has been done owing to the want of Inspectors to do it. I have been analysing the returns of water and I am cer- tain that there is a good deal of waste. Let me tell you, that I don't suppose the Chi- nese are any worse wasters than the Europeans, The Chinese are supposed to look after their taps, and how many Europeans look after their servants ? Nowadays, the Peak houses have all got meters and, on the Kowloon side, no water goes into any house without a meter.
world.
Q—You, Mr. CHADWICK, have had great experience in various other parts of the
How does the water rate here compare with other parts?
A-What is the rate here ?
Q-Twenty-five cents a foot.
A-Twenty-five cents-five pence--is quite cheap. That is, the extra rate. I think it is very cheap. It is a ridiculously low price. In England, I should certainly not, in a case like this, sell water one penny under a shilling per thousand.
In most water-works we look to getting a shilling a thousand and a total revenue equal to one shilling per thousand gallons pumped and delivered, and roughly speaking, to make a profit. Our expense of distribution and pumping will come to sixpence and you can put the other sixpence aside for dividend.
Q-So that, it would not be excessive if the rate were doubled?
A-No. I give you the instance of Malta. They have there an ascending scale. Water not exceeding three gallons a day is gratis; for the next three gallons they have to pay a rate of one shilling, the next three one and sixpence, the next three two
309
Page 405Page 406